RapeX - The Anti-Rape Condom

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

RapeX - Anti-Rape Condom.

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/6807/img1897tx8.jpg

Essentially, the product (http://www.rapestop.net/) is a condom inserted in a woman's vagina, which has plastic barbs which embed themselves to the rapist's penis. The hooks need to be surgically removed. It was developed in South Africa, the highest rape capital of the world.

Women should wear it when '...you have to travel long distances alone, on a train, working late, going out on a date with someone you don’t know too well, going to clubs, or in any situation that you might not feel comfortable or even just not sure.'

They allege it will cause enough pain in the male rapist, that the woman will be able to run away.

South African inventor Sonette Ehlers was inspired by the idea when, twenty years ago a rape victim told her she wished she had teeth "where it mattered."

Lisa Vetten of the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation compares the device to a chastity belt and points out, "It is a terrifying thought that women are being made to adapt to rape by wearing these devices. We should rather focus our energy on changing men's mind-sets and behavior toward women."

A sad reflection of rape in society, I think.

Thoughts?

[Peacekeeper]

They've had these sorts of things for centuries. Look at the US patents. Although usually they were metal blades, like razors, not plastic.
Also, yowtch.

[AGITprop]

Ow.

I'f a woman wants to walk around with that in her, no problem with me. But if she forgot to take it out during consensual sex, I may have to hurt her for the brutal damage she caused me :)

[Peacekeeper]

Ow.

I'f a woman wants to walk around with that in her, no problem with me. But if she forgot to take it out during consensual sex, I may have to hurt her for the brutal damage she caused me :)

Hopefully you would notice before you were all the way in. And I don't know if having something shoved up her vagina is something a woman would be likely to forget about, but then again, I don't have a vagina so I wouldn't know.

[NoArch]

Ow.

I'f a woman wants to walk around with that in her, no problem with me. But if she forgot to take it out during consensual sex, I may have to hurt her for the brutal damage she caused me :)
Charming...:rolleyes:

Anyway, as said, sad reflection on society. Rape is the basest coercion in nature, the only logical response has to be capital punishment. Anybody that feels the compulsion to rape has some serious problems and does not fit in to any society.

[RHIZOMES]

I'm worried about if they left it in during consensual sex.

[BobKKKindle$]

Rape is the basest coercion in nature, the only logical response has to be capital punishment. Anybody that feels the compulsion to rape has some serious problems and does not fit in to any society.

It is emotionally appealing to execute people who are guilty of so violent a crime as rape, which is a direct violation of someone's bodily autonomy, and yet we should still try and approach this issue in a rational way when discussing what the most appropriate punishment would be. What might cause someone to rape? Can someone be held personally accountable for these causes?

Rape is rarely about gaining sexual pleasure, it is an exercise of power, and so evaluating the causes of rape requires us to investigate why people feel the need to be in a position of power over others. Valuing power is part of our social system, and the way we understand sexuality, and so rape is not a crime for which the rapist is solely responsible - it is also a product of social conditions that affect the way individuals view and interact with other human beings. This emphasis on social influence applies to many crimes - domestic violence is most likely to occur in low-income families because of the frustration which arises from living in cramped living conditions and not being able to pay the bills each month. If a crime is partly the result of social influence, the death penalty is not an appropriate punishment, because the death penalty is based on the implicit assumption that we can be held fully accountable for our behavior.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

You know, I think it would be reasonable to expect a mature woman to remember to take it out before having sex...just like it would be reasonable for a man to notice a condom, or a lack thereof, on his penis...

And I noticed that this was not the only thread on it (I apologise, I first learnt of it today).

http://www.revleft.com/vb/anti-rape-condom-t36654/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/south-african-anti-t35694/index.html

[Plagueround]

I'm worried about if they left it in during consensual sex.

If a woman forgets that something like that is in her vagina, she probably has bigger problems that fear of rape . :P

On a more serious note...I think it's sad that something like this exists, but it's only sad because of the reason it was created. I sincerely hope that at some point in humanity's path rape becomes a concept so foreign that people would find the very idea ludicrous...Sexual liberation and the fall of sexist male dominance would probably make sex more enjoyable for both parties.

P.S. I had way too much to drink tonight...sorry if what I post makes little sense.

[Forward Union]

I think this is a great invention. Just a shame it's become neccisary.

One other side-effect of it could be that it deters potential rapists, from comiting the offense. As they wont know who does or doesn't have one.

[Awful Reality]

It's a great invention but I think it needs to be perfected.

1. After penetration will it not just fall out as the man thrusts backwards?
2. It's going to piss off the rapist a lot, to the point at which he'll probably kill her.
3. It seems like it could be removed with a decent sized branch or some similar object.

Yes, putting my self in the mindset of a rapist, if my victim is wearing one of these I'd be about 10 times more likely to kill her.

[Lector Malibu]

I think this is a great invention. Just a shame it's become neccisary.

One other side-effect of it could be that it deters potential rapists, from comiting the offense. As they wont know who does or doesn't have one.

I agree Wat. I saw another device that had a spike in it that pops out. Truly sad these are needed but at the same time men who do this deserve much more that a sore penis. This is a start and could help a woman get away.

[Awful Reality]

This is a start and could help a woman get away.

If she isn't shot first. :glare:

[Lector Malibu]

If she isn't shot first. :glare:

I disagree , though it might backfire as nothing in life is perfect, it might buy her the time she needs. Plus the rapist will have to eventually have to go to a hospital to have the barbs removed witch will help identify the attacker.

over all =win

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Is it sexist to suggest that it could be abused by some women?

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

Is it sexist to suggest that it could be abused by some women?

No more sexist to suggest that women can claim rape where it didn't happen.

We are liars too, you know! :)

[BobKKKindle$]

Is it sexist to suggest that it could be abused by some women?

Women are capable of abusing anything, they can be just as devious as men - but how would it be possible to abuse this device? Do you mean they would purposefully not remove it when they were having consensual sex, just so they can harm the man who is penetrating?

[eyedrop]

Note to self: Always perform oral sex first after quarreling, just too be on the safe side.

Score one to females enjoying oral pleasure!


It doesn't seem very comfortable to wear for the female either. It seems like it could cause harm if worn for extended periods of time. Anyone tried one who could tell if it does or doesn't? Has it gained any popularity anywhere?

[Vanguard1917]

How's this a 'great invention'? It looks like a joke to me. How is it different in principle from walking around with a chastity belt?

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

How is it different in principle from walking around with a chastity belt?

I'm not sure exactly regarding the history of a chastity belt, but weren't they more (from the name) wanting to prevent all sexual acts, even consensual ones? It has a moral basis regarding chastity, rather than this device which females can use by choice to protect themselves.

And of course...a rapist is likely to notice the person wearing a chastity belt. Whereas this thing is alleged that it will not be noticed until it is 'too late.'

[Awful Reality]

No more sexist to suggest that women can claim rape where it didn't happen.

We are liars too, you know! :)

I'm sure that there are many cases of rape where it has not happened.

And everyone lies! Not just women. A perfect example of this overboard knee-jerk ultra-feminist hypersensitive garbage.

[Awful Reality]

And of course...a rapist is likely to notice the person wearing a chastity belt. Whereas this thing is alleged that it will not be noticed until it is 'too late.'

With a chastity belt, he'll give up and go away. But with, since it will not be noticed, the victim will still me abused, hurt, and humiliated.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

I'm sure that there are many cases of rape where it has not happened.

Define many.

A majority?


And everyone lies! Not just women. A perfect example of this overboard knee-jerk ultra-feminist hypersensitive garbage.

Please go away. You're a mega jerk.

How is this ultra-feminist hypersensitive garbage?

Rape is very, very real in South Africa, where this device is made and sold. I will never wear one because I think the risk of myself being raped is low.

You're just using feminist as a pejorative, once again. :rolleyes:

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I imagine they're just generally more comfortable and less noticeable than chastity belts.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Women are capable of abusing anything, they can be just as devious as men - but how would it be possible to abuse this device? Do you mean they would purposefully not remove it when they were having consensual sex, just so they can harm the man who is penetrating?
A woman, either with a grudge against a person or who is just malicious or for whatever reason, could leave it in and then invite a man to have consensual intercourse with her. Not only would it be extremely painful for the man, but she's virtually guaranteed a conviction of she accuses him of rape.

[Lector Malibu]

With a chastity belt, he'll give up and go away. But with, since it will not be noticed, the victim will still me abused, hurt, and humiliated.

This is not an absolute statement Awful Reality.

How do you know it won't work?

And why are you getting so worked up over something that is designed to help protect a woman in a very dangerous situation?

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

A woman, either with a grudge against a person or who is just malicious or for whatever reason, could leave it in and then invite a man to have consensual intercourse with her. Not only would it be extremely painful for the man, but she's virtually guaranteed a conviction of she accuses him of rape.

Umm...no.

He isn't guaranteed a conviction any more than when a man's sperm is found inside a victim - a court would still have to prove lack of consent.

A court would allow evidence of malicious intent to be brought forth and all the evidence supporting such a claim.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Umm...no.

He isn't guaranteed a conviction any more than when a man's sperm is found inside a victim - a court would still have to prove lack of consent.

A court would allow evidence of malicious intent to be brought forth and all the evidence supporting such a claim.
The point is that lack of consent may be inferred from the fact that she had this things inside here when he did it. Why would a woman wear one of these if she wanted sex?

[Awful Reality]

Define many.

A majority?

No, but I'm sure it has happened. Perhaps (wild guess!) 5% or so.




Please go away. You're a mega jerk.

How is this ultra-feminist hypersensitive garbage?

Rape is very, very real in South Africa, where this device is made and sold. I will never wear one because I think the risk of myself being raped is low.

No I'm not, I just find it annoying how almost every post in a thread that involves you has something to do with accusing men of being sexist or their comments being sexist when most obviously they are not.

Yes, rape is a huge problem is South Africa and worldwide. When did I say otherwise?



And why are you getting so worked up over something that is designed to help protect a woman in a very dangerous situation?

Heh.

1) ManyAnts is a jerk
2) I just think it is counterintuitive and that this is not going to stop rape.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

The point is that lack of consent may be inferred from the fact that she had this things inside here when he did it. Why would a woman wear one of these if she wanted sex?

Perhaps in the scenario you described? To inflict damage on the person?

An accused would have the right to bring that up.

Anyway, lack of consent would still have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. If the man could prove that it was used in a malicious way, then the rape charges would naturally flop.

In the face of such an allegation, this evidence would not merit a conviction by itself...

[Lector Malibu]

Heh.
1) ManyAnts is a jerk
2) I just think it is counterintuitive and that this is not going to stop rape.

Spiders is not a jerk. I'd actually like to see her get into the C.C. as she has been a wonderful addition to this board.

And as to your comments as you just admitted they are personally motivated apparently rather in response to what she is presenting.

No one said this would stop rape.

This might buy a woman some time though.

And given the situation I fully support any means a woman can arm herself to help defend from such a barbaric act.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Perhaps in the scenario you described? To inflict damage on the person?

An accused would have the right to bring that up.
Well if it was the case that the woman was simply being malicious and had no real motive to do such a thing (or a history of mental illness) that itself would be very hard to prove. Yes, objectively speaking it is a reasonable doubt but surely you can understand why it may not be construed as such by the jury. Despite the low conviction rate for rape, juries tend to be very sympathetic to victims as long as there is some kind of evidence to show that she was raped. Understandably, and necessarily, the "beyond reasonable doubt" threshold is lower in rape cases (in practice, though not in law).

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

No, but I'm sure it has happened. Perhaps (wild guess!) 5% or so.

Well I'm sorry, but wild guesses are useless.


No I'm not, I just find it annoying how almost every post in a thread that involves you has something to do with accusing men of being sexist or their comments being sexist when most obviously they are not.I did not call anyone sexist in this thread. I labelled no ones comments sexist.

You're a liar, and this is like the third time when you have claimed I am labelling people sexist when I am not.


Yes, rape is a huge problem is South Africa and worldwide. When did I say otherwise?You certainly were patronising by the following comment:


A perfect example of this overboard knee-jerk ultra-feminist hypersensitive garbage.
I just think it is counterintuitive and that this is not going to stop rape.How is it counter-intuitive?

I'll agree that by the time the man has put his penis in you, you are already a rape victim. And personally I would use a knife or pepper-spray before I resorted to using the above. Of course, there is the argument that this would have a socially repressive tendency for men to rape. Yet I don't see how it is counter-intuitive, or any such thing.

As I've already said, I wouldn't wear one because I don't see the possibility of myself being raped. If I lived in a a rough part of South Africa, if I was black and poor, then I may very well use it; I don't know.

Ineffective? Perhaps - it would need to be examined on an empirical basis, which it probably never will because it won't be used often enough.

Of course its not going to stop rape, no one claimed otherwise.

[Holden Caulfield]

its a device/scheme to encourage foreplay from men,

in the future it will be safer to put something else in first to check for barbs and such like,

[eyedrop]

its a device/scheme to encourage foreplay from men,

in the future it will be safer to put something else in first to check for barbs and such like,

Yeah it's a female plot to get more foreplay.

And in my opinion it seems to work perfectly to prevent rape by making it dangereous for men to rape women. Which a chastity belt don't to my knowledge. Let those fuckers who rape get some collateral damage. What it should do is cut of the penis so they woudl be unable to rape (in that way) for all future.

[Lector Malibu]

its a device/scheme to encourage foreplay from men,

in the future it will be safer to put something else in first to check for barbs and such like,

That was uncalled for and not in any way funny

[Qwerty Dvorak]

That was uncalled for and not in any way funny
He may have been serious with the second line.

[rouchambeau]

I love how this discussion about a good anti-rape measure is getting everyone either to think about the way women could use this against men or to make dirty comments.

[Lector Malibu]

I love how this discussion about a good anti-rape measure is getting everyone either to think about the way women could use this against men or to make dirty comments.

Everyone?

[Luís Henrique]

It just occurred to me a shocking possibility... that the rapist might stick his fingers there to check if the device is in place?:scared:

Frankly, I can't see how this would work except in the few first opportunities...

Luís Henrique

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I love how this discussion about a good anti-rape measure is getting everyone either to think about the way women could use this against men or to make dirty comments.
The former is a legitimate concern.

[Lector Malibu]

He may have been serious with the second line.

Obviously

[Lord Testicles]

Frankly all I can see this doing, if it gets to be common knowladge, is making rapists careful.

[rouchambeau]

The former is a legitimate concern.Oh wow.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Oh wow.
Don't be a douchebag. If you think women are incapable of abusing the system then say so.

[redSHARP]

any thing can be abused; humans get off on pushing the limits on anything (glue/ icy hot/video games). of course some one would think it would be funny to leave it in, it is bound to happen (or to forget).

however, is there anal protection on the market? that has the potential of helping a lot of people.

[apathy maybe]

This thread is a great example of what was raised in the thread http://www.revleft.com/vb/male-female-discrepency-t78613/index.html

A device for the protect of women against rape raises comments like

I'f a woman wants to walk around with that in her, no problem with me. But if she forgot to take it out during consensual sex, I may have to hurt her for the brutal damage she caused me

I'm worried about if they left it in during consensual sex.

How's this a 'great invention'? It looks like a joke to me. How is it different in principle from walking around with a chastity belt? (Misses the point completely.)

I'm sure that there are many cases of rape where it has not happened.

And everyone lies! Not just women. A perfect example of this overboard knee-jerk ultra-feminist hypersensitive garbage.
And so on.

Note to everyone. Rape is a serious issue, and while making jokes about serious issues is often used to lighten the mood and/or to make it easy to cope with the subject, these sort of comments aren't really useful for either.


Anyway, back on subject, what is new about this is that it is an all in one re-usable (unless the person is raped) plastic thingy. Much better then the older alternatives mentioned above.

This isn't going to end rape, even if all women wore them. But it will make men think twice about rape, and it will reduce a lot of opportunistic rape I'm sure.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Hmmm...

http://www.revleft.com/vb/anti-rape-condom-t36654/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/south-african-anti-t35694/index.html

[bcbm]

The former is a legitimate concern.

Yeah, we should probably be very worried about this device which could save a woman in a situation that occurs with far too much frequency in the country it is being produced in because of the (statistically insignificant) chance it could hurt a man.

Jesus fucking christ. :glare:

[Kropotesta]

A woman, either with a grudge against a person or who is just malicious or for whatever reason, could leave it in and then invite a man to have consensual intercourse with her. Not only would it be extremely painful for the man, but she's virtually guaranteed a conviction of she accuses him of rape.
Some people may want to run someone over. Should we ban cars?

[Psy]

I'll agree that by the time the man has put his penis in you, you are already a rape victim. And personally I would use a knife or pepper-spray before I resorted to using the above.

Of course, there is the argument that this would have a socially repressive tendency for men to rape. Yet I don't see how it is counter-intuitive, or any such thing.

As I've already said, I wouldn't wear one because I don't see the possibility of myself being raped. If I lived in a a rough part of South Africa, if I was black and poor, then I may very well use it; I don't know.

Why let the rapist get that far? Once word of the penis trap get around, wouldn't it become highely ineffective? Also the rapist might be able to fight the pain enough to still a threat to the women.

A 9mm semi-automatic pistol probably be a better investment as it would probably have a higher success rate of stopping rape and could be used for general defense.

I would think handing out Makarov pistols (cheap and easy to maintain in the field) and training African women how to effectively use them use would help them far more then penis traps, advising women to travel in armed packs would make them being armed even more effective, as a man would have to deal with the fire power of the entire group of women.

[Kropotesta]

Why let the rapist get that far? Once word of the penis trap get around it would become highely ineffective? Also the rapist might be able to fight the pain enough to still a threat to the women.

that's why razor blades should be used and a sharp spike at the end to get the japseye.

[Holden Caulfield]

nevermind , i was a dumb comment...

[Psy]

that's why razor blades should be used and a sharp spike at the end to get the japseye.
It doesn't fix the problem that if the women can get it out a man can get it out if he knows to look for it.

[eyedrop]

No, but it's still better than nothing. No weapon is falseproof.

But I'm still curious if it has gotten any widespread use anywhere. And if it's comfortable to use.

[Vanguard1917]

Basically, women should not have to walk around with bits of material stuck up their bodies for fear of being raped, in the same way that they should not have to walk around with veils covering their faces or chastity belts covering their sexual organs. It merely reinforces the idea that individual women should be personally responsible for not getting raped.

This is what South African anti-rape campaigner Lisa Vetten said about the devise: 'This is like going back to the days when women were forced to wear chastity belts. It is a terrifying thought that women are being made to adapt to rape... Women would have to wear this every minute of their lives on the off-chance that they would be raped.' (see link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapex) and link (http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/2140,features,rapex-the-internal-anti-rape-device)).

[eyedrop]

Basically, women should not have to walk around with bits of material stuck up their bodies for fear of being raped, in the same way that they should not have to walk around with veils covering their faces or chastity belts covering their sexual organs. It merely reinforces the idea that individual women should be personally responsible for not getting raped.

This is what South African anti-rape campaigner Lisa Vetten said about the devise: 'This is like going back to the days when women were forced to wear chastity belts. It is a terrifying thought that women are being made to adapt to rape... Women would have to wear this every minute of their lives on the off-chance that they would be raped.' (see link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapex) and link (http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/2140,features,rapex-the-internal-anti-rape-device)).
Yes, they shouldn't be forced to adapt to rape. But this is simply about causing as much physical damage to rapists as possible, which is a good thing. I woudl prefer to have them walking around with a big hammer and smack the head of the rapist in though.

[Psy]

No, but it's still better than nothing. No weapon is falseproof.

But I'm still curious if it has gotten any widespread use anywhere. And if it's comfortable to use.
But a pistol with proper training is far more effective since for starters the pistol acts as a clear deterrent once it is drawn, firing warning shots alerts others as well as being a show of force to the rapist, that is on top of the lethal capabilities of a pistol.

[Kami]

But a pistol with proper training is far more effective since for starters the pistol acts as a clear deterrent once it is drawn, firing warning shots alerts others as well as being a show of force to the rapist, that is on top of the lethal capabilities of a pistol.
That, plus it helps before penetration has occurred.

[eyedrop]

Yes a pistol would be more effective. Would you be against people using a knife to defend themselfes because a pistol would be more effective?

I don't see what is wrong with supporting every weapon that physically harms a rapist. It's not up to us which weapons they have access to.

[Psy]

Yes a pistol would be more effective. Would you be against people using a knife to defend themselfes because a pistol would be more effective?

A knife can't alert others like a gun shot can. Also a knife requires more training, so I would be against it in that it would be impractical.



I don't see what is wrong with supporting every weapon that physically harms a rapist. It's not up to us which weapons they have access to.
The best outcome is women no longer being seen as a easy target, with most rapist being cowards they'd probably switch to easier targets such as live stock and pets.

[rouchambeau]

RB:

Quote:
Originally Posted by rouchambeau http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showthread.php?p=1149572#post1149572)
Oh wow.

Don't be a douchebag. If you think women are incapable of abusing the system then say so.
I don't think it's impossible for anyone to abuse this. I just think you have ill motives behind your objections. That's all.

[Marsella]

I'd rather just use my mouth.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I applaud the intent behind this device, even if the execution (possibly) leaves something to be desired.


Basically, women should not have to walk around with bits of material stuck up their bodies for fear of being raped, in the same way that they should not have to walk around with veils covering their faces or chastity belts covering their sexual organs. It merely reinforces the idea that individual women should be personally responsible for not getting raped.

So if I concealed carry a pistol when walking through dangerous areas, does that "reinforce the idea that individuals should be responsible for their personal safety"? If I get badly mugged as a result of not carrying any form of self-defence, does that somehow mean it's my fault?

I would love a device that hurt people trying to hurt me. The Rapex is something that voluntarily worn by women with a view to sabotaging rape attempts - quite unlike the veil and the chastity belt which are enforced on women by males and is intended to enforce patriarchy.


This is what South African anti-rape campaigner Lisa Vetten said about the devise: 'This is like going back to the days when women were forced to wear chastity belts. It is a terrifying thought that women are being made to adapt to rape... Women would have to wear this every minute of their lives on the off-chance that they would be raped.' (see link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapex) and link (http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/2140,features,rapex-the-internal-anti-rape-device)).Nonsense. The Rapex doesn't change the fact that rape is illegal, and is obviously intended to be worn in areas where the chances of being raped are high, not to be worn "all the time" on the "off chance" that one might get raped.

It might be better if women carried pistols or holdout weapons in such situation, but the Rapex looks cheaper, therefore opening up more options for those who either can't afford a weapon or can't acquire one.

[eyedrop]

A knife can't alert others like a gun shot can. Also a knife requires more training, so I would be against it in that it would be impractical. And the aquiring of a gun wouldn't be impractical in lots of cases?



The best outcome is women no longer being seen as a easy target, with most rapist being cowards they'd probably switch to easier targets such as live stock and pets.
Not disagreing here, but how do one achieve that? By harming as many rapists as possible by whichever means possible.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Yeah, we should probably be very worried about this device which could save a woman in a situation that occurs with far too much frequency in the country it is being produced in because of the (statistically insignificant) chance it could hurt a man.

Jesus fucking christ. :glare:
I said it to the other guy and I'll say it to you. Don't be an asshole. If you have an argument, make it. Seriously, it's time we started cleaning up this board, and it's not Chit-Chat that's the problem it's rubbish like this.

First of all, I never said it should not be implemented, you're misrepresenting my position. I said it could potentially be abused by some women. that is a fact, if you don't believe so, bring your case. I made no comment as to whether or not it is statistically insignificant; the fact that it is a statistically insignificant risk may, if put in another way, by another person, who actually wants to debate, have been a legitimate argument.



Some people may want to run someone over. Should we ban cars?
No, because the criminal law acts as a deterrent to people running other people over, it being fairly easy to secure a conviction for running someone over. I imagine it would be quite difficult to secure a conviction against a woman in these circumstances though.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

RB:

I don't think it's impossible for anyone to abuse this. I just think you have ill motives behind your objections. That's all.
Okay, then voice them. PM me. Leave a message on my profile. Bring it up in the "Chauvinist posters" thread in the CC. Reply to this post. Anything.

If we want RevLeft to improve then accusations of chauvinism (which is what I believe this is) have to be taken seriously by both sides.

[TC]

Basically, women should not have to walk around with bits of material stuck up their bodies for fear of being raped, in the same way that they should not have to walk around with veils covering their faces or chastity belts covering their sexual organs. It merely reinforces the idea that individual women should be personally responsible for not getting raped.

This is what South African anti-rape campaigner Lisa Vetten said about the devise: 'This is like going back to the days when women were forced to wear chastity belts. It is a terrifying thought that women are being made to adapt to rape... Women would have to wear this every minute of their lives on the off-chance that they would be raped.' (see link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapex) and link (http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/2140,features,rapex-the-internal-anti-rape-device)).

I agree totally,

Whats more though is that marketing and selling and over reporting in the media about an item like this has the affect of contributing to an expectation of rape.

The idea that if you're a woman you should be afraid of rape, afraid of men, afraid of male sexuality, afraid to be on the streets alone at night, afraid to be with strange men, is a terribly repressive idea.

The radical feminists who viewed rape as a political weapon of the patriarchy to keep all women in check recognized this social affect of the fear of rape...and while I think the radical feminists were wrong to think that acts of rape are political or somehow reinforce the patriarchy, the media's fixation with rape may very well have just that affect and be political.

Although they seem to have stopped, last year and the year before last the London Met Police essentially littered the Tube (London metro/underground) and university campuses and pre-film adverts with warnings about rape; rape by mini cab drivers (i must have seen hundreds of those ads: "want to know how much the cab costs: ask a rape victim") rape by men buying you drinks in bars ("drink aware") rape by strangers on the street ("which ones the rapist" poster showing lots of guys on the street).

The affect is to cause women to grossly overestimate their actual danger of stranger rape (sexual assault is common, stranger rape is extremely rare) and alter their behavior accordingly...spend less time alone at night...talk to men they don't know less...except drinks and drugs from strangers less...get drunk less...etc...in short it does have the affect of controlling women's sexuality. It makes friends insist that their female friends walk home with someone else at night when they wouldn't insist on the same for their male friends, it creates a feeling of vulnerability and dependence, a lack of competence.


This device has one marketing angle: irrational fear. There is no realistic way it would prevent a single rapist from raping a single victim (by the time it 'works' the user is already a rape victim); it has absolutely no conceivable ability to deter rape (a rapist would just check for one and remove it if they suspected it was in place); the idea that it would give a rape victim 'time to get away' is implausible (by the time it 'works' clearly the rapist would already have restrained the victim; it would just make them more likely to injure them more severely); that it would make convictions easier is also implausible since it doesn't affect conventional legal defenses for alleged rapists and even if they need medical attention, unless both rapist and rape victim remarkably stumbled into the same hospital there would be no complaining witness and therefore no prosecutable crime.

[Psy]

So if I concealed carry a pistol when walking through dangerous areas, does that "reinforce the idea that individuals should be responsible for their personal safety"? If I get badly mugged as a result of not carrying any form of self-defence, does that somehow mean it's my fault?

First off concealing a firearm seems to defeat the purpose of a deterrent, it would be better for women waring visible pistol holsters, so women can easily draw the weapon and turn off the saftey while drawing the pistol. The pistol holster itself also acts as a deterrent as it advertises the fact that the women is armed.



And the aquiring of a gun wouldn't be impractical in lots of cases?

It doesn't require much means of production to produce semi-automatic pistols and ammo, African factories could in theory mass produce them. So instead of importing penis traps as Africa doesn't have the technological means to mass produce them, Africa could mass produce semi-automatic pistols itself. Of course the global market is flooded in cold war era semi-automatic pistol surplus stock and ammo so it probablly be cheaper for African to import semi-automatic pistols and ammo in bulk then these penis traps anyway.



Not disagreing here, but how do one achieve that? By harming as many rapists as possible by whichever means possible.
But with the penis trap it is after the fact. What you want is the would be rapist when he is thinking about it to spot the pistol holster and be deterred.

[Vanguard1917]

Although they seem to have stopped, last year and the year before last the London Met Police essentially littered the Tube (London metro/underground) and university campuses and pre-film adverts with warnings about rape; rape by mini cab drivers (i must have seen hundreds of those ads: "want to know how much the cab costs: ask a rape victim") rape by men buying you drinks in bars ("drink aware") rape by strangers on the street ("which ones the rapist" poster showing lots of guys on the street).

The affect is to cause women to grossly overestimate their actual danger of stranger rape (sexual assault is common, stranger rape is extremely rare) and alter their behavior accordingly...spend less time alone at night...talk to men they don't know less...except drinks and drugs from strangers less...get drunk less...etc...in short it does have the affect of controlling women's sexuality. It makes friends insist that their female friends walk home with someone else at night when they wouldn't insist on the same for their male friends, it creates a feeling of vulnerability and dependence, a lack of competence.

That's a really good point. Rather than benefitting women, the government's exaggeration of the risks faced by women on the streets has the effect of reinforcing conservative social codes in respect to how women should live: e.g. not go out alone, don't talk to strange men, watch what you drink, watch how you dress, etc. You're right: this creates feelings of vulnerability and dependence in women.



This device has one marketing angle: irrational fear. There is no realistic way it would prevent a single rapist from raping a single victim (by the time it 'works' the user is already a rape victim)

Exactly. It has no real preventative value. Indeed it's a device whose effectiveness pressuposes the incidence of rape ('by the time it 'works' the user is already a rape victim', as you put it). The message it's sending out to women is that they should adapt to an environment where rape is a fact of life.

[Vanguard1917]

I would love a device that hurt people trying to hurt me. The Rapex is something that voluntarily worn by women with a view to sabotaging rape attempts - quite unlike the veil and the chastity belt which are enforced on women by males and is intended to enforce patriarchy.

What if i said that women should go around voluntarily wearing headscarves and chastity belts in order to make themselves less desirable to rapists? Is that fair enough?



Nonsense. The Rapex doesn't change the fact that rape is illegal, and is obviously intended to be worn in areas where the chances of being raped are high, not to be worn "all the time" on the "off chance" that one might get raped.


According to the product's makers:



Women should wear it when '...you have to travel long distances alone, on a train, working late, going out on a date with someone you don’t know too well, going to clubs, or in any situation that you might not feel comfortable or even just not sure.'



In other words, the device is designed to be worn pretty much everywhere - since, for those making the device, all situations outside of the home or where a woman is likely to come into contact with strangers make women vulnerable to be raped.

[Luís Henrique]

A woman, either with a grudge against a person or who is just malicious or for whatever reason, could leave it in and then invite a man to have consensual intercourse with her. Not only would it be extremely painful for the man, but she's virtually guaranteed a conviction of she accuses him of rape.

For some reason, I would be concerned with the opposite: that a woman not wearing this gadget could be considered as having given implicit consent...

"If you really didn't want to have sex, why were you not using your willie-trap?"

Luís Henrique

[Mujer Libre]

But a pistol with proper training is far more effective since for starters the pistol acts as a clear deterrent once it is drawn, firing warning shots alerts others as well as being a show of force to the rapist, that is on top of the lethal capabilities of a pistol.

Okay- let me step in here and say that we're talking about South Africa here. Chances are that the rapist has a gun, and is more likely to use it than the woman.

Many people in South Africa do have guns, and that doesn't stop them being victims of violent crime.

I think there are much better solutions that doling out guns- and the Rapex certainly isn't one of them, particularly as others have touched upon, it doesn't actually prevent rape, it just makes it painful for the attacker, so it's not much more than profiting off women's suffering and fear.

[Herman]

It's disheartening to see that devices like these have to exist in order to "prevent" rape, which tells you a bit on what's going on in Africa regarding women and discrimination. It's equally bad for reasons TragicClown pointed out.

[bcbm]

I said it to the other guy and I'll say it to you. Don't be an asshole. If you have an argument, make it. Seriously, it's time we started cleaning up this board, and it's not Chit-Chat that's the problem it's rubbish like this.

I didn't post rubbish, nor am I ruining the board and I did make an argument. I am sorry the sarcasm I put the argument in proved too much for you to overcome, so I will spell it out more clearly:

You're saying that the argument you are raising about this device being used against innocent men is a legitimate concern about its manufacture and sale, even though the likelihood of that is basically slim-to-none, particularly when compared to the event it is intended to be used against. I mean, really, what do you think the statistics are of women raped vs. innocent men having barbed condoms on their dick? I can take a wild guess which one would have more occurrences. So to be making a big deal out of how innocent men could be hurt by this, especially when are there are far more legitimate concerns being laid out, seems a pretty stupid argument coming from some misguided notions about women and rape.


First of all, I never said it should not be implemented, you're misrepresenting my position.

I never said you said it shouldn't. I used the phrase "be very worried about," so you're actually misrepresenting my position. Oops.


I said it could potentially be abused by some women. that is a fact, if you don't believe so, bring your case.

Yeah, and then that line or discussion continued for a very long time. More than the discussion of other problems, which we are thankfully getting back around to. I find it a bit strange that the immediate response to an anti-rape device (whether it works or not) is some men getting very worried it might be used against innocent men, when its quite clear that while rape is a large problem in South Africa, innocent men getting their dicks hurt is not. Unless you can produce a report? Like I said, I think the reasoning going into this is pretty suspect.

I mean, if I posted a thread about a new kind of chainsaw or something, would you be jumping in to post "Oh, but this could be used to saw innocent people in half!" I really doubt it.

[BobKKKindle$]

Ideally, rape would not exist, and women would not have to resort to using a device like this. Unfortunately it is unlikely that rape will disappear in the near future - and so anything which discourages men from raping women (because they are afraid that the potential target may be wearing one of these devices) or inflicts pain on men who have tried to penetrate a woman through the use of force (thereby giving women an opportunity to run away) is positive.

For those who do not support the use of this device: Apart from radical changes in the way society views women and the exercise of power, how is it possible to reduce the incidence of rape?


What if i said that women should go around voluntarily wearing headscarves and chastity belts in order to make themselves less desirable to rapists?

Why would wearing a hijab or any other concealing garment make someone less likely to rape a woman? Rape does not arise because men want to release sexual frustration or because they have been aroused by the sight of an attractive women - it is an exercise of power and so women who are not attractive are also at risk. Therefore, this comparison is not valid.

[Vanguard1917]

so anything which discourages men from raping women (because they are afraid that the potential target may be wearing one of these devices) or inflicts pain on men who have tried to penetrate a woman through the use of force (thereby giving women an opportunity to run away) is positive.

Anything which discourages men from raping is a good thing? What about women staying at home and not going out? That would virtually eliminate the risk for a woman being raped by a stranger on the streets, on a train, in a bar, etc.

Anything which discourages men to rape is not necessarily a good thing - it is not necessarily in the best interests of women.



For those who do not support the use of this device: Apart from radical changes in the way society views women and the exercise of power, how is it possible to reduce the incidence of rape?



This device would not reduce the incidence of rape; as some of us have pointed out, it presupposes the incidence of rape: i.e. by the time the device is 'effective' the woman has already been raped. And once it gets known that women potentially wear these things, the rapist would simply look for and remove the device.



Why would wearing a hijab or any other concealing garment make someone less likely to rape a woman? Rape does not arise because men want to release sexual frustration or because they have been aroused by the sight of an attractive women - it is an exercise of power and so women who are not attractive are also at risk. Therefore, this comparison is not valid.


Many people would argue, however wrongly, that a woman who goes out dressed conservatively (e.g. wearing a head scarf) is less likely to be raped than a woman dressed more openly.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that this is statistically true. Would you advocate that woman dress less openly and cover themselves up in order to discourage rapists from raping them?

This RapeX device is also comparable with chastity belts and other devices designed to stop women being raped (for example, see this (http://web.archive.org/web/20000711042724/http://www.tpe.com/~altarboy/nt000625.htm)). Would you advocate that women walk around with these also?

These are all examples of attempts to make women adapt to an environment where rape is seen to be a fact of life - something which women should design their lives around.

Such a view is more than often based on highly conservative assumptions, and it has the effect of restricting the autonomy and freedom of women.

[BobKKKindle$]

Anything which discourages men to rape is not necessarily a good thing - it is not necessarily in the best interests of women

You make the mistake of assuming that staying at home (so that strangers do not have the opportunity to rape women) and wearing a device such as a chastity belt are both restrictive in the same way - but they are not, and so this comparison cannot be made. It is not possible that, by wearing a device such as a chastity belt, women are able to gain some degree of psychological security (even if the device is not practically useful when a woman is confronted with a violent rapist) and so feel more comfortable when they go outside? If these devices did not exist, could it not be argued that some women would choose not to venture outside at all, for fear of rape? This is the general impression I derived from the article concerning the chastity belt.

Would you object to women carrying concealed handguns? Arguably this could also be seen as adapting to a world in which rape is a common occurrence - and yet this would certainly give women the means to defend themselves.

[TC]

Ideally, rape would not exist, and women would not have to resort to using a device like this. Unfortunately it is unlikely that rape will disappear in the near future - and so anything which discourages men from raping women (because they are afraid that the potential target may be wearing one of these devices) or inflicts pain on men who have tried to penetrate a woman through the use of force (thereby giving women an opportunity to run away) is positive.

As Vanguard1917 said, I disagree. It does not follow that because discouraging rape is a good thing, that anything that reduces rape is therefore also a good thing.

I also don't think this particular device actually can reduce rape for the reasons listed, and I think this line of thinking has a repressive affect (as I discussed earlier).


For those who do not support the use of this device: Apart from radical changes in the way society views women and the exercise of power, how is it possible to reduce the incidence of rape? Firstly, I don't frankly think the incidence of rape in most countries is high enough to justify encouraging women altering their behavior in anyway. The attitude that because bad things sometimes happen, something must be done and anything could be justified to prevent it from ever happening, is just wrong; we live within the parameters of acceptable risk.

The fact is that the actual chances of being raped are very low, and the chances of being raped by a stranger even far lower. Yes, I know the hysterical '1 in 4' figure, and if I were running a rape crisis charity of some sort I'm sure I'd fudge numbers for the sake of funding as well, but pandering that way is actually socially extremely harmful.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/182369.pdf

Its closer to 2% not 25%.

South Africa might be an exception as the country with the highest incidence of rape by far, although I'm not sure what it is.



Why would wearing a hijab or any other concealing garment make someone less likely to rape a woman? Rape does not arise because men want to release sexual frustration or because they have been aroused by the sight of an attractive women - it is an exercise of power and so women who are not attractive are also at risk. Therefore, this comparison is not valid.I think you're going a little too far with the political line that 'rape is a violent crime not a sex crime'; actually its both. No, its not because of 'sexual frustration' (and the its just a sex crime so lets encourage porn and/or conservative outfits line is equally bullshit) but most rapists are sexually interested in exercising power and dominance to humiliate their victims most of the time. Most rapists are more likely to rape victims they're at least somewhat sexually interested in on a physical level, then those that they're not.



You make the mistake of assuming that staying at home (so that strangers do not have the opportunity to rape women) and wearing a device such as a chastity belt are both restrictive in the same way - but they are not, and so this comparison cannot be made. It is not possible that, by wearing a device such as a chastity belt, women are able to gain some degree of psychological security (even if the device is not practically useful when a woman is confronted with a violent rapist) and so feel more comfortable when they go outside?

The marketing of the devices helps create insecurity, that they then 'treat' the insecurity they create does not justify them.


If these devices did not exist, could it not be argued that some women would choose not to venture outside at all, for fear of rape?

Then they clearly have bigger problems then actual rapists.




Would you object to women carrying concealed handguns? Arguably this could also be seen as adapting to a world in which rape is a common occurrence - and yet this would certainly give women the means to defend themselves.

At least concealed handguns have some practical application.

[Vanguard1917]

You make the mistake of assuming that staying at home (so that strangers do not have the opportunity to rape women) and wearing a device such as a chastity belt are both restrictive in the same way - but they are not, and so this comparison cannot be made. It is not possible that, by wearing a device such as a chastity belt, women are able to gain some degree of psychological security (even if the device is not practically useful when a woman is confronted with a violent rapist) and so feel more comfortable when they go outside? If these devices did not exist, could it not be argued that some women would choose not to venture outside at all, for fear of rape? This is the general impression I derived from the article concerning the chastity belt.


It is one thing to acknowledge that women may wear these devices out of fear and anxiety; it is something wholly different to welcome and advocate them.

I'm sure many women feel more secure going outside wearing headscarves. That doesn't mean that we should advocate the wearing of headscarves to make women feel more secure in public.



Would you object to women carrying concealed handguns? Arguably this could also be seen as adapting to a world in which rape is a common occurrence - and yet this would certainly give women the means to defend themselves.


My point was that the RapeX device, by its very function, presupposes that rape is going to take place, and that the woman should adapt herself to it. A gun is different in that it can potentially prevent the rape happening in the first place.

The important thing, though, is to oppose the climate of fear and insecurity which is fostered by social and political elites, making women feel like they can't step out of their homes on their own unless they dress conservatively, are reserved in their public conduct, wear chastity belts or other such devices, or are armed. This helps create an artificial feeling of anxiety and vulnerability in women, as opposed to a feeling of confidence that women can come out of their homes and play an active role in society alongside men.

[Psy]

Okay- let me step in here and say that we're talking about South Africa here. Chances are that the rapist has a gun, and is more likely to use it than the woman.

You can train women to greatly increase the chances that they will use the firearm, there are women guerrilla fighters so women can be trained to not hesitate when it comes to using the firearm. With training you can train women to first draw the pistol and take the safety off before negotiating with the rapist.



Many people in South Africa do have guns, and that doesn't stop them being victims of violent crime.

Most of violent crimes in Africa is still armed criminals against unarmed victims, also training makes a huge difference.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

Somewhat related article: Five Reasons Why "Teach Women Self-Defense" Isn't a Comprehensive Solution to Rape. (http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/01/five-reasons-why-teach-women-self.html)

[Psy]

Somewhat related article: Five Reasons Why "Teach Women Self-Defense" Isn't a Comprehensive Solution to Rape. (http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/01/five-reasons-why-teach-women-self.html)

- Women instructors solves the issue of rape by instructors.

- A buddy system would help again rape of unconscious women as they would be protected by other armed women. (Basically following the idea that there is safety in numbers)

- Pistols mostly solves the problem of women not being able to fend off attackers.

- Heavily armed women in a revolutionary guerrilla army (really you don't need to exclude men at this point) solves the problem of police. Police locks up women for defending themselves in Africa, well those police stations are easy target for guerrilla armies, thus the solution is simply to storm the police station with body armor, flash bangs and AK47s in a text book execution of a dynamic breach, liberate the prisoners and torch the police station and flee before the army shows up. In the industrialized nations much more firepower would be needed yet worker solidarity can be highly effective, yet such worker solidarity makes revolution possible and seems like selling the movement short for compromising with the ruling class for women rights in exchange for not push forward with the revolution.

- Rape by someone the victim knows, that is actually a hard one.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

Rape by someone the victim knows, that is actually a hard one.

And pretty important considering, that where I live, 78% of victims know their sexual offender, 30% of rapists being partners or former partners.

...and of course state intervention would be wholly excessive and inappropriate.

[Jazzratt]

This is a good invention, as far as it goes (it protects against stranger rape, when worn) but I would think that carrying some sort of weapon (small pistol, lock knife, whatever) would be a better idea because it can protect against a larger range of crimes.

[Vanguard1917]

This is a good invention, as far as it goes (it protects against stranger rape, when worn)

It doesn't, as we've pointed out (see previous posts).

----

It's interesting how the men tend to think this is a good invention, while the women who've commented on it want none of it. I guess maybe because the latter are the ones who'd have to actually walk around with it inside them...

[Knight of Cydonia]

but I would think that carrying some sort of weapon (small pistol, lock knife, whatever) would be a better idea because it can protect against a larger range of crimes.
this. i agreed, it's better then carrying something in my ****** :lol: i think it would feel so much uncomfortable for feeling that something has insert my ****** all the time when i go to work, work late, etc.

[TC]

This is a good invention, as far as it goes

I can imagine it as an especially twisted hen/bachelorette party gag gift...if you're quiet the pervert and disapprove of the marriage.


Thats as far as it goes :-p.

[Luís Henrique]

Summed up...

... since the State is too incompetent to actually prevent rape, someone has invented a way that women carry a piece of the police inside their bodies.

Luís Henrique

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

Summed up...

... since the State is too incompetent to actually prevent rape, someone has invented a way that women carry a piece of the police inside their bodies.

Luís Henrique

Well...could any state be 'competent' enough to prevent rape?

Interesting question, I think.

[Kami]

Well...could any state be 'competent' enough to prevent rape?
I think that any state "competent" enough to prevent rape is intrusive enough for it to be the least of our worries.
Crimes of passion are right out the window; they can never really be predicted
A real problem is repeat offenders; rape is notoriously under-reported, so it can be quite some time before serial rapists are even known to exist. I suppose this is an area in which police could improve; encouraging victims to come forward.
Premeditated first offences... well, there's not really much that can be done in this case, either, without a serious violation of the would-be offenders privacy. In fact, since there's no real way of knowing who the potential offender is, you'd have to moniter pretty much everyone.

'course, the simple step of legalising prostitution might help, and getting the idea that scantily clad women somehow "were asking for it" out of people's heads would go a long way too.

But yes, a tricky, but interesting question.

[Dr Mindbender]

i was a rapist living in a country where women wore these things, i'd probably just ass-rape the woman instead.

I disagree that this is comparable to a chastity belt though, because women have control over when they can or cant wear this. Chastity belts traditionally had a lock with a male key-master.