Read this, then.
I was over at Twisty's, reading I don't remember what, and somehow ended up reading about Rapex, which is an interesting invention by a woman in South Africa. It's a condom-like device, meant to fit inside a woman. Has little vicious barbs on its inside, something like those snags you encounter in parking garages, so you can't take your pickup out of the entrance ramp without blowing the tires? The idea is that women who are at risk to be raped would wear the Rapex device, and then if attacked by a rapist, well, he jams it in, you see, and as he's yanking it out, yikes! Ow!
Apparently debilitating pain. She can run away while he's writhing and screaming.
And he can't get it off without surgical intervention, so he has to go to a hospital, she can give evidence, he can go to prison.
I'm thinking, hmm, and also I bet fellas would be just a bit reluctant to rape women if these little surprise packets might be inside us, for all they knew.
So I go over to Wikipedia (as I do) to see what my homes over there say.
The article itself says okay things:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-rape_female_condom
But the talk page? Good crap.
(1) Apparently at one point someone equated this device with tree-spiking. WTF?
(2) A number of commentors (male, I assumed, but who knows) seem to believe "vengeful" women are going to wear this during sex to "get" their poor menfolk (b/c you know how we women are, we love to attack those dicks).
(3) Others claim to be against it b/c it wouldn't stop STDs. (Please!)
(4) Mainly, though? The main body of the criticism is that this device would be unfair -- yes, unfair -- to the rapist.
The fact of the matter is that no one, not even rapists, deserves to be injured the way that this device would injure people. There are plenty of ways of preventing and stopping rapes without resorting to the mindset of the dark ages.... as this article outlines, the device offers no visual deterrents, which means that the rapist would not know that the woman was wearing the device (which would itself be a deterrent to rape), and furthermore, the device causes excessive harm for what it tries to accomplish. I do not think that rapists should be subjected to excessive and cruel treatment. They are people too, and however deplorable their acts against their victims are, they still deserve humane treatment...
This device carries a significant risk of causing severe and permanent damage. Government policy changes, better policing, better education, stronger economies, better health care, pepper spray, tasers, martial arts training, etc. do not. Should potential victims try to stop their attackers? Of course. Should devices be marketed that seek to cause excessive pain and damage? Absolutely not.
I find that your claims that a woman using the device maliciously would face repercussions are highly dubious. Consider this: the device is marketed to stop rapes. Imagine that a man goes to the hospital with this device gouging holes in his penis. He tells the doctors that his girlfriend asked him to have sex with her, but was wearing the device, and that as soon as his penis was caught, she laughed at him and told him that it served him right for being a man. Meanwhile, his girlfriend has called the police and complained that the man attempted to rape her. Who will the court believe? --HarmonicFeather 03:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a very dangerous device because it encourages women to not defend themselves, maybe even not saying "no" and rely on this easily avoided trap. Also it really is a 100% revenge tool, like "you rape me, i take you with me" which is a very babaric mindset to me indeed. (No signature)
Right. How dare a woman do something so barbaric as stop herself from being raped? Evil bitch.
And here's Dave the concern troll:
I have to wonder if it's effective because in order for it to work, the woman has to be raped first... Seems counter productive to me. Why not work on education, outreach and support? Dave8904 19:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Education, outreach, and support: you know, those things that have been working so well so far.
The real concern is that women should be kept rapeable. Otherwise no one would care what they had in their cooters, would they? B/c whose business is it, after all, what I do with my body, if you're not planning to interfere with it?
Here's the link to the talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-rape_female_condom
2 hours ago
6 comments:
I'm all down for protecting one's self from being raped or harmed in any way, but I have to ask, "What of those women, those vengeful women, who would misuse such a device in order to cause harm to some unoffending man (perhaps some poor liberal feminist chap, just appeal to ya)?" also. I mean, women could wear it even during concensual sex and that provides potential for misuse. The potential is there; though, the occurence may be low. Who knows?
That said, I just wanna know how a non-rapist caught in that trap would manage to escape criminal punishment for something that he didn't do. Does the Rapex thing prevent injure to the vaginal wall that usually occures during rape?
Furthermore, if he has to enter a woman for the device to work, she's still being raped; it's not saving her from emotional damage. And it's possible that it might do damage to the actual DNA evidence. What kind of chemical is inside of Rapex to prevent contamination of said evidence from say infection and the like (not that a rapist doesn't desire an infection of the member); would purity of this evidence be imperative to a rape case?
Also, does the device injure women in anyway? Is it possible for the thing to malfunction and rip the vaginal walls? That could be deadly. What'sre the barbs made of? Could it get stuck in her and on him and cause even more damage? What if the perps profile includes "enjoys pain"; he'd be incline to keep going.
Sick I know, but you know how my head works.
I'm just thinkin: how could this be made more effective?
From the pictures (if you follow the links, the Rapex company has a web page and links) the barbs are all on the inside. The Rapex item is like a female condom -- fits inside the woman. Won't hurt the woman; and will, like condoms, provide protection against disease.
I suppose yes, some evil woman (like that Bobbit woman) could use this tol to injure some hapless fellow. I don't see this being a big risk. Look how often womanin our culture have injured men's penises vs. how often women have been raped -- and it is not like we don't have the technology to do so. Any woman could do what Bobbit did, couldn't we? We all know where the knives are, and all the fellas sleep sometime. But so far, how many women have taken advantage of that technology? (Hmm. One?)
So I really don't see a big risk of this Rapex tool being misused as a revenge item.
I'll give you that we hear about raped women more often that mutilated men.
But if it is inside, then it isn't preventing rape. She's still penetrated; she's still raped.I reject the notion that it prevents rape. It doesn't; it might stop it--after it's been started-- but what are the consquences to victim?
I say that the rapist leaving with his own DNA and hers will negative effect court cases in which the device is involved. There will be, as is with other condoms, situations where a malfunction occurs, which may cost a conviction.
If he can hold out, he can take off with both his and her DNA, come back, not come back. Find a way to remove the thing. Latex and plastic are not unbreakable. Even website doesn't say that it can't be removed by the criminal, just that "it is extremely difficult to remove."
He's already hurting: a box knife on taunt latex, one swift quick slice. It will come off and I can tell you that a box knife with a sharp blade WILL (with the right amount of pressure/skill) cut only the latex. Even if he cuts himself, a little neosporine and some cleanliness should make sure that his genitals heal properly.
That the risk you're willing to take? That he can take off with your DNA, his, and you'll have no way to find him, no way to convict him or get him off the streets.
I like that it prevents STD transmission and pregnancy; I like the use of latex and plastic; I'm down with the barbs, but I'm hung up on the evidence thing.
Eh, I'm not so much interested in the device anyway as the fellas reactions to it -- that their reaction was to protect the rapist, that "oo we can't hurt the rapist, he has rights!" rather than noticing that someone else was actually getting hurt here -- has been getting hurt here, for, good shit, centuries? And now is fighting back? And when we do, the reaction is Those Evil Bitches Might (might!) use it unfairly, so let's not let them have it.
That was the point I labored to make, I guess.
Which it has always been the reaction to any bit of power that has gotten into the hands of the oppressed, I suppose.
I mean, tree-spiking? Good shit.
I concede to that.
Post a Comment