Please, Won't Somebody Think of the Rapists?

At the end of the month, South African shelves were supposed to start stocking a controversial anti-rape device called Rapex. The device, worn like a tampon, is staged so that when a rapist makes his approach, it clamps down on his penis. The only way to remove the Rapex and stop the incredible pain is to head to a doctor, who will then report the rape.

But don't get too excited. Rapex has been delayed amid logistical difficulties and worries about its impact.

The project has been greeted with enthusiasm as well as scepticism. One of those critical of the device is Charlene Smith, a rape survivor, journalist and activist on women's issues. She says she believes the device will increase the risk of victims being killed.

"I would be appalled and every rape survivor I know would be appalled and be incredibly concerned, if the Rapex device does actually make it to stores. We believe that women who use it, will be killed by the rapist. If this device clamps onto a man, that man is right next to the woman, he's not going to jump out and say 'oh gosh this is hurting me'. He's going to kill that woman. So we increase the risk of the women raped, being killed," Smith said.

Does this actually make sense? Maybe experience on this differs, but it's generally the case that scrotal injuries paralyze the injured rather than making them angry. The response to getting George C. Scotted in the groin isn't "I'm going to beat the hell out of whoever did this" as much as "I am going to die."

Comments

[Karl]

Why would a woman know what it feels like to get George C Scotted?

[Tim Cavanaugh]

This sounds like the setup to a traveling salesman joke.

[Jeff P (Too Much Info Edition)]

Yes, having my genitalia severed with infuse me with the vigor and resolve to kill someone, as opposed to rolling around squealing. Hell, I can't drink my morning glass of cranberry juice without my nuts sucking up into my pelvis, causing me to walk funny for at least two minutes.

I am wondering if any rapist has ever used the word "gosh." But for some nightmarish reason the phrase "Gee wilikers, lady, you sure got a pretty mouth," keeps going through my head.

[Dennis]

At the risk of getting a bit too graphic, I think the "I'm going to die" response is the result of trauma to the...um...beans, rather than the frank. Not that trauma to the frank isn't cause for serious alarm, but I don't think you can discount the concern that the rapist would still have the presence of mind to kill his victim.

That said, I love the Rapex idea (though I could see it posing some interesting legal questions down the line, like, the Rapex-wearing victim at some point appearing to give consent to the act, so she could spring the trap.)

[Whorehey]

If the rapist coerced his victim at gunpoint then I can easily see this happening. I doubt an unarmed rapist would take the time to beat the hell out of his victim while his dick is bleeding but it only takes a second to go from "OW!" to BLAM!

[Warren]

David,
I can't always tell if you're joking. While sever trauma (read hit like a baseball or squeezed like a lemon) to the balls can be incapacitating or even fatal, the same is not true of the penis.

What I know about rape, I learned in health class over twenty years ago. As I recall "it's not about sex, it's about power". My guess, any rapist finding himself painfully trapped, would almost certainly beat his victim to death.

Being the owner of a penis myself, the first thing that came to my mind was more along the lines of; For every rape thwarted, there'll be 100 women who use this thing to get back at men who "did them wrong".

[the other Mark]

Consider that a large number of rapists are likely to be all fucked up on something or other. They might not react to barbs in the wang like a normal person might.

But regardless, this is a pretty cool idea. A better idea yet is for women to carry guns if they think being raped is so likely (though I think guns are fairly illegal in SA).

[MainstreamMan]

I think the version in "Snow Crash" makes more sense. A strong general anesthetic in each barb...

[thoreau]

I'm not sure that it's all it's cracked up to be, but if women want to use it then so be it. If nothing else, the painful surprise might make for a good opportunity for the woman to fight back.

[lannychiu]

I don't know. I used to fence in high school/college, which is unfortunately a sport in which people can't wear cups (too restricting to movement).

The few times I got hit in the genitals, I pretty much immediately hit the floor and was paralyzed for at least 30-60 seconds. This would provide at least some time for a woman to get away.

[Akira MacKenzie]

This is simply a rehash of the "never fight back and give your attacker exactly what they wants" argument. I've heard it used mainly against defending yourself against robbery, but I've found that the wanna-be pacifist usually get flustered after you ask them "Well, what if they intend to rape or kill you."

If Ms. Smith thinks wearing a dentata is so horrific, I hate to hear what she thinks about women carrying a knife or (shudder, gasp!) a pistol. In fact, I can hear her now: "Just lie back and try to enjoy it ladies."

[B]

I don't care what those dolts on that transcript say, I just finished reading through that episode and it was freakin hilarious. I kept falling off my chair laughing. Soo funny. Rapping rabbis!

[Tim]

Uh, yeah, if the guy is "stuck" he will most likely beat the crap out the woman. No two ways about it. Unless it is so painful he goes into shock or something. I also agree with above that you will see women using this as some sort of device for revenge. But I don't see how that works after you consider this guy she would want to get back at is "stuck" right there and she would be unable to get him disconnected until she sought medical help. I think more likely a woman getting drunk and forgeting it's there is a bigger concern. I also see the word of this device spreading and leading to "other avenues" to be sought out by rapists. Unless they have device for that route as well. Is this an Onion story?

[Rex Rhino]

OK, we need miniture beartraps to hide in a woman's snatch, that attacks the penis of a rapist (or more likely an ex boyfriend)... you know... because gun ownership is just too violent and unsafe!

[Schempf]

Don't you think the rapist would probably start taking the back door?

[the other Mark]

Woudn't rapists learn to just stick their fingers up there first to investigate? Who doesn't do that first, anyway?

This device sucks if you think about it for three or more consecutive seconds. They should just distribute pistols to all South African women if it's such a problem.

[mobile]

The current research says that anything that makes rape more difficult or less pleasant for the attacker will make women safer. The Rapex sounds almost unambiguously good for the rapees.

[crap-action-jackson]

Um, which way do the barbs point?

Do they let it all the way in, then snag it on the way out?

Or make it impossible to get in there in the first place?

Just wondering...

[SR]

I think this product should be legal, but I agree with Warren that it is something that is probably far more likely to be used against boyfriends or husbands who are suspected of cheating than against an actual rapist.

[Nostradennis]

The other downside is that David's statement that it's "worn like a tampon" is incorrect. The article describes it as a female condom and my understanding is that those are visible from the outside.

I still love the idea. I think the execution might be a problem though.

[Jennifer]

Not to be too cynical here, but considering the appallingly high rates of HIV in South Africa, I'd imagine a lot of rape victims there end up getting killed anyway, only it takes longer. If I'm going to die because of an attack, I at least want to take that sonofabitch with me. Were I a South African woman, I'd not only wear one of these thingies every time I went outside, I'd find some poison to smear on the barbs.

[Jennifer]

I agree with Warren that it is something that is probably far more likely to be used against boyfriends or husbands who are suspected of cheating than against an actual rapist.

You could make the same argument about every single self-defense weapon in the world.

[GILMORE]

isnt everyone just ignoring the meta-point here =

Who the hell plans on getting raped in advance? Do they look out the window and go, 'gee, looks like an especially rape-y day - better put that bear trap in the honey pot'

Or are women expected to pre-emptively walk around for months carrying around an artificial lamprey in their most private areas in the off chance they get jumped? Seems like an extraordinary over-the-top precaution to take even for such a horrible thing.

JG

[GILMORE]

Jennifer =

"You could make the same argument about every single self-defense weapon in the world.

Hell yes. Every self defense weapon in the world. That are hidden in the vagina.

I am not agreeing with anyone here, as my point above (who plans ahead for rape?) sorta preempts this concern... but i'd add that not every self defence weapon is quite so...specific in it's effect. In that sense I see how this might appeal to people in abusive relationships seeking a specific kind of revenge, maybe, in theory.

This is still really creepy.

[Greg]

I guess it would help if there was only one rapist. And if this thing catches on it would be pretty easy for a rapist to check for the device and remove it first.

[Jennifer]

Hell yes. Every self defense weapon in the world. That are hidden in the vagina.

Ah, so a woman who wouldn't mind using one of this things to get back at her boyfriend would never, ever do anything like put poison in his food or drink, attack him with a knife or gun, superglue his penis to his stomach while he's sleeping (I actually read a news story about that once). . . no, these items will be used by psycho women against their boyfriends, but nothing else will.

Furthermore, a woman who ordinarily would never attack the man in her life will change her mind once these devices go on the market. Thus, these devices will put at risk innocent men who otherwise would have nothing to worry about.

[GILMORE]

Jennifer

"no, these items will be used by psycho women against their boyfriends, but nothing else will."

No one said that. I personally dont think it matters much because again, i dont think they are an effective deterrant (like a gun might be) - they're a booby trap (or...well...something trap) only effective if the deed is done.

I dont see how they could be endorsed at all as a practical help, for many of the points raised.

Let me add that any expressed skepticism about the penis-trap does not necessarily make me pro-rape. It does make me cringe a bit.

cheers,
JG

[smacky]

That said, I love the Rapex idea (though I could see it posing some interesting legal questions down the line, like, the Rapex-wearing victim at some point appearing to give consent to the act, so she could spring the trap.)

Gives a whole new meaning to vagina dentata.

I think this product should be legal, but I agree with Warren that it is something that is probably far more likely to be used against boyfriends or husbands who are suspected of cheating than against an actual rapist.

So? ...Good.

Who the hell plans on getting raped in advance? Do they look out the window and go, 'gee, looks like an especially rape-y day - better put that bear trap in the honey pot'

Hmm...this sounds like a strangely similar argument for OTC Plan B.

[Zach]

Getting my nuts sqeeuzed like that would probably make me roll around the ground screaming bloody murder to please make it stop and would accomplish nothing other than cruel and unusual punishment.

[Rex Rhino]

You could make the same argument about every single self-defense weapon in the world.

Not at all... The assumption with this device is that if you are harmed by this device, you MUST be a rapist! If South African courts are anything like American courts, if a man has this device used on him, that will be proof enough to send him to prison. Where as with a gun, there is no assumption of self defense: we all know a gun can be used for defense and offense.

Also, a gun requires active decision making. You must point the gun, and pull the trigger. With the Snatch Trap, a woman can say "I had forgot it was inside me", and that is that. Where as a gun, there is no arguement. You aren't going to "accidentally" shoot someone unless you are negligent, in which case it is still a crime.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think these things should be made illegal... they should be legal purely on principle. But it is absurd that a society and people who shun private gun ownership could support this retarded device.

[Jennifer]

Gilmore, from what I've read, the rape rate in SA is exponentially higher than it is here. If this device were sold here in the US, I'd probably agree that this is less likely to snag a rapist than a man whose girlfriend was pissed off. But in South Africa, the chances of getting raped are so much higher that for a lot of women, this might simply strike them as a sensible precaution, not the sign of paranoia that it would be in this country.

[Zach]

But it is absurd that a society and people who shun private gun ownership could support this retarded device.

Amen brother, a barrel of a .38 would deter criminals alot more than this penis clamp.

[Jennifer]

Gilmore, from what I've read, the rape rate in SA is exponentially higher than it is here. If this device were sold here in the US, I'd probably agree that this is less likely to snag a rapist than a man whose girlfriend was pissed off. But in South Africa, the chances of getting raped are so much higher that for a lot of women, wearing this might simply strike them as a sensible precaution, not the sign of paranoia that it would be in this country.

[AC]

Jennifer,

First, I think this should go on the market. Fears of misuse should not bar sales.

However, I can see where GILMORE is coming from, just because it will appeal to some deranged individuals as an amusing and non-lethal way to get back at the ex. There is a definite public perception of humor whenever a man is emasculated, and the perceived lack of seriousness may cause some individuals to act in a way they never would with a more serious alternative (such as poison or a firearm). Not to mention some of the legal issues that other posters have mentioned.

[Zach]

But it is absurd that a society and people who shun private gun ownership could support this retarded device.

Amen brother, a barrel of a .38 would deter criminals alot more than this penis clamp.

[smacky]

Amen brother, a barrel of a .38 would deter criminals alot more than this penis clamp.

Not really...the criminal would probably just wrestle it out of the victim's hand.

Besides, the penis clamp is simply more just. You stick your wang where it doesn't belong, you pay the price. I'm sure they can make one for the backdoor, too.

[SR]

"You could make the same argument about every single self-defense weapon in the world."

As GILMORE already pointed out, this weapon is highly specific in its application and also something that does not seem very practical to "carry" on a daily basis. Indeed, it is obviously something that requires a very high degree of prior planning to deploy. Also, like I said before, I think it should be legally available, but I'm extremely skeptical that many of them will be used for their stated purpose. It would be far better to carry a gun or some other sort of ranged weapon.

[Captain Holly]

I would agree there is a potential for misuse, but as someone else pointed out, every defensive weapon has a potential for misuse.

The advantage of having this device on the market is the same as having a certain percentage of citizens carrying concealed firearms: The would-be rapist will think twice about an attack, because he won't be sure who's wearing one of these and thus can't take the chance he'll get "Bobbitted", so to speak.

But then, if South Africa is going to give women this tool to protect themselves from rapists, why not just make carrying a gun easier so they can protect themselves from robbers, kidnappers, and abusive ex-boyfriends, too?

[Lurker]

Seriously, you ijits will bicker about anything, won't you?

[smacky]

But then, if South Africa is going to give women this tool to protect themselves from rapists, why not just make carrying a gun easier so they can protect themselves from robbers, kidnappers, and abusive ex-boyfriends, too?

Captain Holly,

See my 1:36pm post as to why carrying a gun wouldn't necessarily help.

[Jennifer]

The assumption with this device is that if you are harmed by this device, you MUST be a rapist! If South African courts are anything like American courts, if a man has this device used on him, that will be proof enough to send him to prison

Actually, from what I've read about South African courts, rapists rarely if ever get prosecuted. Women need to stop being so fucking desirable, and then maybe the sluts won't get raped as often.

[cgee]

Once the Rapex device is offered for sale in South Africa and purchased and used by women in significant numbers, all the pro- and anti- Rapex arguments will be proven moot, since it is a near-certainty that the device will not have the intended effect of deterring rape.

As a result of the widespread publicity regarding the Rapex device and the process of bringing it to market, SA men are undoubtedly well-aware of its existence and will know when it becomes available. At that point, a SA man inclined to commit rape will adapt his practices in one or more of the following ways: (1) by manually checking the victim's vagina for the device (it will likely injure his fingers, but such pain is certainly easier to handle than genital injury); (2) by visually checking for the device and then forcing the victim to remove it prior to penetration; (3) by initially raping the victim with a foreign object as a means of both checking for and removing the device; (4) by limiting the rape to anal and/or oral sodomy.

An argument can be made that the above actions would require a degree of planning and intelligence that most rapists will not possess. I disagree. Nearly all men, regardless of intelligence, are able to understand the correlation between genital injury and intense pain. Just watch the way men wince in unison when they see another man get whacked in the nuts during a ballgame or movie. In any event, none of the above actions require much in the way of pre-planning.

Rapists have already shown an ability to adapt their behavior to changed circumstances. Once DNA testing in rape cases became routine, at least some rapists began using condoms and forcing their victims to shower and douche after the attack. While such actions may not completely eliminate the risk of detection through DNA retrieval and matching, it is a clear indication that at least some rapists are capable of adaptation.

[Zach]

Besides, the penis clamp is simply more just. You stick your wang where it doesn't belong, you pay the price. I'm sure they can make one for the backdoor, too. except, as another said, there is too much possiblilty for misuse, what if it's soem sadistic bitch who wants revenge on her boyfreind or she forgot to take it out. A gun must be fired deliberatly and you can think before puuling the trigger if you must, this device just goes snap and renders the unfortunate man without the ability to have an erection for weeks.

[Warren]

I would not make this device illegal. However, I think it's overall impact will be a negative one.

Not for the first time I am unsettled by the seeming delight many women take a the prospect of doing sever injury to a man's genitalia.

[smacky]

At that point, a SA man inclined to commit rape will adapt his practices in one or more of the following ways: (1) by manually checking the victim's vagina for the device (it will likely injure his fingers, but such pain is certainly easier to handle than genital injury); (2) by visually checking for the device and then forcing the victim to remove it prior to penetration; (3) by initially raping the victim with a foreign object as a means of both checking for and removing the device; (4) by limiting the rape to anal and/or oral sodomy.

cgee,

You do make some interesting points. Not to project anything bad on your character, but I did find it more than a bit disturbing that you can think so clearly like a repeat rape offender would.

[Jennifer]

there is too much possiblilty for misuse, what if it's soem sadistic bitch who wants revenge on her boyfreind

If she's that much of a sadist, I think she'll figure out a way to make her boyfriend suffer no matter what. Kinda like the way anti-gun laws didn't stop crime in Britain; the criminals learned to make do with knives.

[SR]

I think this product should be legal, but I agree with Warren that it is something that is probably far more likely to be used against boyfriends or husbands who are suspected of cheating than against an actual rapist.

"So? ...Good."

Note to self: Never, ever, ever date smacky.

[GILMORE]

🙂

Jesus.

I have no idea how I became the cheerleader for this thing either a) being banned (never said anything!) or b) being a tool of malicious females (someone else brought that up! - i just said it was useless as a deterrent)

My point was that based on the odds of predicting rape, and the idea that people would be strapping these things on daily, seems kind of stupid and useless.

I mean, if it WORKS, it means you've just been raped. Congratulations!

I'm kind of hoping for the super-scientists to come up with a cooze-fired weapon, or something to actually kill the raping bastard before he does his deed.

Regarding the exponentially higher rates of rape in South Africa - indeed. it's insane.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1703595.stm

But I'm not so sure a prophylactic with teeth is much of a real solution. Maybe it is? Geez i dont know. anything is possible. Maybe salt-peter in the water supply would be effective too. I dont know what the hell is wrong with people.

[Zach]

I never said outlaw it since that would be against my libertarian beliefs, but a gun would be a much bvetter way of protecting yourself from rape, just get a glock ultra compact or something small and carry it in your purse, if some creep decides to stick his johnson where it doesnt belong, give him a lead sandwich. It's well known that neighborhoods where the majority of the population has guns in thier homes are much safer than places where they are banned.

[Geoff Nathan]

Not much more to add to the discussion here, except, as a self-defence instructor I should add that generally the advice to women defending themselves is not to kick (or whatever) someone in the groin--sure it hurts, but it isn't necessarily incapacitating (depends on the individual, the aim, etc.) It may well make your opponent mad. It may well make your attacker want to beat the shit out of you.

If you really want to stop someone from attacking you, you need to make them unable to function--hit them hard in the solar plexus (so they can't breathe--usually gets their attention), or gouge their eyes--all horrible stuff, of course, but rapists and muggers need serious persuasion. Of course, brandishing a .38 is good too...

[smacky]

If she's that much of a sadist, I think she'll figure out a way to make her boyfriend suffer no matter what. Kinda like the way anti-gun laws didn't stop crime in Britain; the criminals learned to make do with knives.

At the risk of sounding like a psycho, if the guy really did wrong the woman badly, I wouldn't feel too sorry for him. Moreover, she would no doubt suffer criminal penalties for lying (abusing trust?), domestic violence, etc. if she did indeed abuse the wang-iron-maiden. So women would have a disincentive to abuse the device.

[smacky]

Note to self: Never, ever, ever date smacky.

SR,

I had a feeling that my commenting on this thread would inevitably ruin my future chances with any of the male posters here.

🙂

(FWIW, my comments are all theoretical in nature and in no way based on personal history or future events that may transpire.)

[Rick H.]

A message board I frequent sometimes had a lengthy discussion about this last year.

http://tinyurl.com/lm46s

The Reason machine is opposed to any links in my HTML.

[AC]

So women would have a disincentive to abuse the device.

As I mentioned, though, that disincentive will be distorted because of the apparent humor value in damaging male genitalia.

[Jennifer]

At the risk of sounding like a psycho, if the guy really did wrong the woman badly, I wouldn't feel too sorry for him.

If the guy is physically violent, then he needs to be arrested. If he's emotionally violent, that doesn't give the woman the right to physically hurt him; just respond in kind.

Like when I broke up with this one (mega-asshole) ex of mine: I did not sound angry, but spoke in a very sad and regretful tone as I explained that, while he certainly had many fine qualities and ordinarily I'd be madly in love with him, he was absolutely the worst lover I'd ever had [not true], and I'm just too selfish to spend my life with a man who was so thoroughly uninspiring in bed. (My own version of the "it's not you, it's me" cliche.)

You should've seen the way his face crumbled. See? I have nothing against emasculating asshole guys; I just do it with sharp pointy words rather than sharp pointy devices.

[smacky]

As I mentioned, though, that disincentive will be distorted because of the apparent humor value in damaging male genitalia.

I don't personally know anyone who finds damaging male genitalia funny. Maybe some disgruntled people would get a sense of schadenfreude out of it, but certainly not humor. I'm pretty sure that it's everyone's basic understanding that damage to male genitalia hurts and hurts badly.

[Doctor Duck]

I'm sure they can make one for the backdoor, too.

Front door, back door... now I'm worried. What if he comes through the window?

[ed]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but wouldn't an old-fashioned chastity belt achieve the same results without the nasty sausage grinder effects? No point in detaining the salesman if he can't get in the door.

[Timothy]

Note to self: Never, ever, ever date smacky.

I think the lesson is don't cheat on smacky.

[Jennifer]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but wouldn't an old-fashioned chastity belt achieve the same results without the nasty sausage grinder effects? No point in detaining the salesman if he can't get in the door.

If the would-be rapist sees a chastity belt, he leaves and goes attack somebody else. I'd prefer something which damages him so he can't go attack another woman.

[GILMORE]

I explained that, while he certainly had many fine qualities and ordinarily I'd be madly in love with him, he was absolutely the worst lover I'd ever had [not true], and I'm just too selfish to spend my life with a man who was so thoroughly uninspiring in bed

Hmm. Thats interesting....

... maybe that means that last gf just actually thought i was a jerk!?

🙂

[citizengnat]

Why don't we all just wait and see whether this has positive effects? I don't see how so many of you can be sure it won't do any good. South Africa has a serious problem in this regard and I salute any attempt to do something about it.

[ed]

If the would-be rapist sees a chastity belt, he leaves and goes attack somebody else. I'd prefer something which damages him so he can't go attack another woman.

You could make the same point if you substituted "gun" for "chastity belt." It's not your concern or obligation to play cop or vigilante. If the would-be rapist goes elsewhere you have defeated his attack on you. That's what counts.

[smacky]

You could make the same point if you substituted "gun" for "chastity belt." It's not your concern or obligation to play cop or vigilante. If the would-be rapist goes elsewhere you have defeated his attack on you. That's what counts.

Exqueeze me? I don't think so. It can be Jennifer's concern to cripple a would-be racist if she wants to and if he gives her or any other woman that ability. By your logic, a white-collar thief shouldn't be punished or hindered for attempting to steal money from a corporation -- as long as that corporation defended itself, that would-be thief should be free to try again elsewhere???...I don't think so. Oh wait, this is about the defense of women! Silly me...who cares.

[Jennifer]

Even so, Ed, this thing sounds a lot cheaper (and probably more comfortable to wear) than a chastity belt, and if I had to live in a country where rape rates were as high as in South Africa, I'd derive a certain satisfaction from knowing I had a role in reducing the number of rapists in the country by one.

[smacky]

Correction: It can be Jennifer's concern to cripple a would-be rapist if she wants to

[thoreau]

I'm surprised that a self-defense weapon is causing so much controversy on this forum.

[Jennifer]

Just to clarify, Ed: I know full well that it is not my "obligation" to cripple a would-be rapist. I'd just do it because I want to.

[Jennifer]

I'm surprised that a self-defense weapon is causing so much controversy on this forum.

There's always been some background levels of misogyny here. I'm not surprised by this at all.

[Warren]

There's no point in bringing up chastity belts. They are for the most part, just a prop in medieval melodrama. In modern times, they are mostly symbolic bedroom toys. A truly effective chastity belt, costs several hundred dollars minimum. They are also very uncomfortable and may be noticeable under clothing. (However, it just occurred to me that as a rape deterrent device, one might choose to wear it over their clothing, thus starting a new fashion fad). Also a CB is a high maintenance accessory, with special hygiene considerations.

[Warren]

There's always been some background levels of misogyny here.

Ah yes I see, some of us have expressed concerns of effectiveness and potential abuse. Since it is a device designed to do injury to a man's penis, it's our misogyny that must be motivating us.

[rob]

I'm all for any self-defense weapon that protects people from larger, stronger attackers.

OTOH, this particular device 1) seems as tho it would be easy to defeat for reasons specified by cgee above and 2) gives me the heebie-jeebies because of the possiblity for misuse.

smacky's approach is in particular freaks me out - she actually seems to believe that the appropriate response to the suspicion that a man is cheating is to mangle him rather than simply break up with him.

Funny how guys who think this particular piece of equipment might be ineffective or used to punish guys who are not rapists unfairly (a la smacky) are misogynists who don't want to protect women. Yet women who think it's a great idea to injure a man physically for cheating on them escape being justly accused of misandry...

Funny ole PC world that we live in.

[mediageek]

"Not really...the criminal would probably just wrestle it out of the victim's hand."

Most people, when confronted with the business end of a firearm tend to stop whatever it is they're doing and either run away or pay very close attention.

Barring that, this is as good a reason as any for practicing retention drills. 🙂

[smacky]

If the would-be rapist goes elsewhere you have defeated his attack on you. That's what counts.

Warren,

I'm sorry, but the above quote is totally misogynistic. I don't think anyone here would make a similar argument concerning a thief or a would-be murderer. But because it's a would-be rapist, it's ok to let him try again??? WTF???

[mediageek]

...or you could just pull the trigger repeatedly when the aggressor attempts to disarm you.

[mediageek]

Oh, and FWIW, I have no problem with the Rapex widget.

[smacky]

smacky's approach is in particular freaks me out - she actually seems to believe that the appropriate response to the suspicion that a man is cheating is to mangle him rather than simply break up with him.

Oh, jeez, rob, it's not "my approach" -- I never advocated doing such a thing...I was simply ambivalent (or perhaps a bit flip) about whom my sympathies would lie with in such a situation.

[smacky]

smacky's approach is in particular freaks me out - she actually seems to believe that the appropriate response to the suspicion that a man is cheating is to mangle him rather than simply break up with him.

Oh, jeez, rob, it's not "my approach" -- I never advocated doing such a thing...I was simply ambivalent (or perhaps a bit flip) about whom my sympathies would lie with in such a situation.

[linguist]

there is too much possiblilty for misuse,

Whoa! By that logic, I suppose we should castrate all men. Problem solved!

[rob]

smacky - Fair enough... But I still suspect you'd act differently to a "simply ambivalent" or "perhaps a bit flip" response about mangling females in a similar fashion.

And it seems a wee bit disingenous coming from someone who is tossing out accusations of misogyny by hammering Warren for saying that the most important thing is to ensure that a "would-be rapist goes elsewhere you have defeated his attack on you. That's what counts."

Which seems imminently sensible and not like Warren's advocating that you don't ID the guy to the cops!

[Warren]

If the would-be rapist goes elsewhere you have defeated his attack on you. That's what counts.

Warren,

I'm sorry, but the above quote is totally misogynistic. I don't think anyone here would make a similar argument concerning a thief or a would-be murderer. But because it's a would-be rapist, it's ok to let him try again??? WTF???

Comment by: smacky at June 23, 2006 03:10 PM

smacky,
The way I read ed's post was that, you need only be concerned for your own safety. That you are not responsible for preventing future crimes he might commit. I don't see any indication that ed would not hold the same for theft or murder.

From your comments here, I think the misogyny you detect is the product of your own anti-male bias.

[SR]

"I don't think anyone here would make a similar argument concerning a thief or a would-be murderer."

I would. You have a right to defend yourself, your property, or others only where there is an imminent threat. If someone attempts to mug me and I scare him off by brandishing a gun, I don't have the right or the responsibility to chase after him and shoot him despite the risk that he might go mug someone else.

[mediageek]

You can have my penis when you pry it from my cold dead hand.

er...

or something.

*looks about pensively. Skulks back to seat, but not before grabbing some chips and salsa from the snack table.*

[smacky]

Rob,

The comment was ed's, not Warren's. I was objecting to Warren's claim as to why there are occasional cries of misogyny on here.

The way I read ed's post was that, you need only be concerned for your own safety. That you are not responsible for preventing future crimes he might commit.

Warren,

That is true. But nobody was suggesting that a woman must be or should be held responsible for the prevention of future crimes. That part is voluntary. ed's post seemed to be suggesting to me that letting a rapist get away free of consequences (as they often do) is prefereable to him getting his just desserts, and I disagree. And, although ed's post doesn't indicate whether he would feel the same about a thief or a murderer, I was pointing out that it is safe to say that nobody here thinks that thiefs and murderers should get off consequence-free, so why should rapists?

From your comments here, I think the misogyny you detect is the product of your own anti-male bias.

Warren,

You go right ahead and keep making judgements about my personal biases...it only makes you look like the ignorant asshole, not me.

[GILMORE]

Funny how guys who think this particular piece of equipment might be ineffective or used to punish guys who are not rapists unfairly (a la smacky) are misogynists who don't want to protect women.

Noticed that but didnt want to throw gas on the fire. It's a (no pun)...er...sensitive topic.

Theres also this weird twist of reasoning between Smacky/Warren =

If the would-be rapist goes elsewhere you have defeated his attack on you. That's what counts.

I'm sorry, but the above quote is totally misogynistic. I don't think anyone here would make a similar argument concerning a thief or a would-be murderer

... er?

I made the point above that these things - even if they work - dont technically stop rape. Or are bound to be effective in any real way.

Anoter dude suggested old fashioned chastity belt.

response was, "thats no good, because they'll just go elsewhere for their raping pleasures"

Dude was like, 'yeah', but YOU dont get raped? Isnt that enough?'

The response is 'Woman hater!'

Sigh. I dont even understand the thief or murderer line. Do we cut off hands these days?

Oh my god. Just rememberd. If you've never ever seek this sketch it must be watched NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW

http://danwho.net/mp/index.php?id=mrshow_rapist

JG
not a rapist

[Warren]

Comment by: mediageek at June 23, 2006 03:52 PM

ROFL that cracked me up

[linguist]

JG, I also thought of the unlikelihood that these things will be worn day-in, day-out. And you're right that by the time penetration occurs, the woman is already being traumatically assaulted.

However, for the rest of you who think this is some awful plot by women to hurt a sensitive area of the man, remember that in rape he is using that area AS A WEAPON, and women shouldn't feel guilty about being happy to disarm that weapon.

[smacky]

Sigh. I dont even understand the thief or murderer line. Do we cut off hands these days?

No, not in America. But there are other ways of tracing thieves and murderers. Sometimes medical rape kits fail. Sometimes the rapist isn't caught. If a suspect has a mangled wiener, though, it's a pretty good indication that he was the offender.

Also, as linguist points out, this isn't an offensive measure, it's self-defense. Even if it weren't made available on the market, who's to stop women from making their own versions?

[NoStar]

The legal system in the US frowns upon people who boobytrap enclosures even if they have experienced repeated break-ins and thefts, so the device will never be allowed here.

btw: How is the device removed without a woman losing a finger or two?

Come to think of it, women with missing fingers might be targeted less for rape.

[ed]

You're way off, Smacky. You certainly have the right to shoot an attacker. You certainly don't have the right to chase him down the street and shoot him if he hasn't actually touched you. A gun used as a deterrent is quite different than a gun used for vigilantism. How you got misogynism out of my analogy is well beyond my comprehension.

[smacky]

You're way off, Smacky. You certainly have the right to shoot an attacker. You certainly don't have the right to chase him down the street and shoot him if he hasn't actually touched you.

LOLs!

Now could you please point out where I advocated running down the street and forcing a guy to put it in my boobytrapped vajinga? LOL!!

Hate to break it to you, but the device is a self-defensive measure, despite the fact that it is clearly offensive to some of you.

[smacky]

Don't worry, guys...anything that has the potential to make women's lives as free citizens easier is bound to get banned from the United States by the predominantly conservative male electorate.

[linguist]

Come to think of it, women with missing fingers might be targeted less for rape.

I'm assuming that was a joke. But just in case it wasn't, you might want to ask yourself why so many older and disabled women are raped.

Also, you are aware that most hookers don't look like Angelina Jolie, right?

[smacky]

Also, you are aware that most hookers don't look like Angelina Jolie, right?

Disclaimer: This does not mean that Angelina Jolie doesn't look like a hooker.

🙂

[ed]

There's lots of joking here, but some of the commenters have a limited sense of humor. Lie back and try to enjoy the thread, ladies.

I keed, I keed!

[linguist]

Alright Ed, that was funny. 🙂

[NoStar]

linguist,

Of course, it is a joke, but I still want to know how this device is extracted without losing a finger.

I guess one could always sacrifice a dildo.
Where is Steely Dan when you need one?

[linguist]

NoStar,

Hmmm. Well they compare it to a tampon, so perhaps it has a pullstring? Or, if other are right about the female condom's construction, it may not be inserted all the way, so there would be a "lip" (so to speak - heh) that could be used to pull it out.

[mediageek]

Isn't vajinga that game with the stacked wooden blocks where you try to remove them one at a time without toppling the whole thing over?

[smacky]

I'm kind of surprised that so many people (specificially guys) on this thread would prefer women to carry handguns (potentially life-threatening) over wearing this penis-trap. Is this indicative of anyone's priorities here? ("My life before my penis!" - ??)

I think perhaps some of you may be discounting women's fear, anger, and frustration at rape or attempts at rape. Personally, if someone tried to rape me and I were carrying a handgun (rather than wearing this device), in the heat of the moment I would probably skip "self-defense" and aim straight between the eyes.

[mediageek]

Smacky, I don't think I understand.

The point of using a firearm for self defense is to stop the aggressor right now. If lethal force is what is required to stop the attack, then so be it.

[Jadagul]

I don't think I have much to add to this. There's potential for abuse. Lots of things have potential for abuse; most of them should still be legal.

I really just wanted to comment to say that Jennifer's breakup story was absolutely spectacular. I'll have to remember that one.

[rob]

"I'm kind of surprised that so many people (specificially guys) on this thread would prefer women to carry handguns (potentially life-threatening) over wearing this penis-trap. Is this indicative of anyone's priorities here? ('My life before my penis!' - ??)" - smacky

Nope, I just know that there are women out there willing to lop off men's anatomy with a knife (Lorena Bobbitt) and dump boiling hot grease on them in their sleep. I don't think this device should be outlawed anymore than I think guns or kitchen utensils should be. I simply question its effectiveness and point out that it gives me the creeps because unlike firearms and kitchen utensils, this device is specifically intended to mangle a man. Bottom line: If you're worried about self-defense, concealed carry permit and practice is the way to go. This thing can't stop you from being beaten senseless, having the thing removed forcibly, and then being subject to the same things you could have prevented by shooting the guy.

"I think perhaps some of you may be discounting women's fear, anger, and frustration at rape or attempts at rape. Personally, if someone tried to rape me and I were carrying a handgun (rather than wearing this device), in the heat of the moment I would probably skip 'self-defense' and aim straight between the eyes." - smacky

Not a bit. You seem to be forgetting that most men have wives, daughters, sisters and mothers. I know what I'd do to someone trying to hurt someone I love. Between the eyes, between the legs, whatever it takes.

"Don't worry, guys...anything that has the potential to make women's lives as free citizens easier is bound to get banned from the United States by the predominantly conservative male electorate." - smacky

More humorous misandry? Anyway, last I checked, women outnumbered men in this country and had attained suffrage. If you're wondering whose fault it is that it's mostly old white guys in power, look to the national sisterhood...

smacky, I get the feeling that plenty of guys have done you wrong in the romance department, it's the only reason I can think of that you'd think it was funny to mangle some dude's junk. Maybe we could get together and pen some blues tunes, since until recently I've been pretty unlucky in love as well...

Have a great weekend!

[M']

Just push a broom handle up their snatch first to activate the trap and then rape away as usual.

[cgee]

smacky sez - You do make some interesting points. Not to project anything bad on your character, but I did find it more than a bit disturbing that you can think so clearly like a repeat rape offender would.

No offense taken. As disturbing as it might be, I think it is important for anyone concerned about violence against women to engage in such a thought experiment so as to employ a rapist's logic against him.

While I fully support the right of women to purchase and use a device such as the Rapex, I am concerned about the false sense of security it would provide in light of the shortcomings mentioned in my original posting.

In place of this bizarre gadget of questionable efficacy, I would support efforts making it easier for law-abiding adults of either gender to lawfully carry concealed handguns. In the hands of a woman properly trained in its use, a handgun is likely to prove far more effective in foiling a rape, since it can be used well before the rapist gets anywhere near a woman's genitals.

[dhex]

i'm going to suggest - very gently - that i could see this device getting a lot of women killed. it is not true that a groin shot will disable a male attacker in all cases. i would presume (but never want to find out) that this extends to genital mutilation as well.

presuming we accept that rape is solely about power and not some combination of that and other factors, it doesn't take that much force to crush someone's windpipe in a fit of pained rage, especially if you're already laying on top of them. or stab them, etc.

the poetic justice factor, however, is incredibly high. i am curious as to how it would be removed, and whether any precautions for the sexually transmitted disease factor (blood + agitated vaginal tissue = bad news) are even possible.

[dhex]

also, smacky, i know plenty of women who think male genital mutiliation is funny, especially if the guy deserves it. shit, even i think it's funny sometimes.

[M']

cgee, I guess you mentioned the broom handle thing above! Stupid me for not reading!

[Dennis]

Just to correct a comment I made earlier about the rapex being visible, apparently, it's not...

http://www.rapestop.net/faq/index.asp

[NoStar]

Well if it's invisible, it must not have a tampon like string. Perhaps the broom handle is the extraction method of choice.

[Captain Holly]

Even if it weren't made available on the market, who's to stop women from making their own versions?

ALERT! ALERT! ALERT!

All men who instinctively reach for their groin whenever they hear the words "Lorena Bobbitt" should not read the following:

Ready? Okay.

When I was in the Marines, there was an urban legend about how some VC whores would implant or affix razor blades to the inside of their vaginas in order to "make the Imperialists Dogs pay", so to speak.

You may open your eyes now...

[Captain Holly]

Amen brother, a barrel of a .38 would deter criminals alot more than this penis clamp.

Not really...the criminal would probably just wrestle it out of the victim's hand. Besides, the penis clamp is simply more just. You stick your wang where it doesn't belong, you pay the price. I'm sure they can make one for the backdoor, too.

Smacky, I don't want to turn this into a gun thread (especially since no one is paying attention anymore) but that's hogwash. In over 90% of all defensive gun uses, simply brandishing the gun is sufficient to send the assailant packing. No shots need to be fired.

It's interesting that you would tout a device such as the Rapex -- which requires close, direct physical contact with the (likely) larger and more physically powerful rapist to be effective -- and yet poo-poo the benefits of a firearm, which can stop the rapist before he even touches you.

I'm not against Rapex per se -- see my comment at 1:37 -- but in terms of protecting a woman from physical harm, a gun would work much better since it can be used before the rapist even gets close enough to do anything.

[MainstreamMan]

"It's well known that neighborhoods where the majority of the population has guns in thier homes are much safer than places where they are banned."

At the risk of raising the hackles of Mediageek & co., I would like to comment that this is certainly not well known, and the best evidence would lean in the other direction.

Those interested in digging into the debate can just google.(try "Crime rates gun ownership" Use Google Scholar to get the peer reviewed stuff, and check out titles "More guns, More Crime" and "More guns, Less Crime" to start)

As far as rape prevention goes, however, it seems a gun is not a bad idea. Particularly if it is visible (as opposed to concealed)...

see above-- Comment by: mobile at June 23, 2006 12:55 PM

[thoreau]

Personally, if someone tried to rape me and I were carrying a handgun (rather than wearing this device), in the heat of the moment I would probably skip "self-defense" and aim straight between the eyes.

Bad idea. Aim for the chest. It's a larger target, and in a stressful situation it's a bad idea to over-estimate how good of a shot you are.

[Jeff P]

I'm sorry, I know this probably makes me a bad person, but Gilmore's line "gee, looks like an especially rape-y day" is the funniest thing I read this week.

[van]

>>You do make some interesting points. Not to project anything bad on your character, but I did find it more than a bit disturbing that you can think so clearly like a repeat rape offender would.

I don't think anything cgee had to say demonstrated any special insight that only a rapist would have. I think the possibilities for getting around the Rapex that he suggested are logical and fairly obvious.

Rapex -- what a bizarre name for this product, btw. Sounds like something that would be promoted in an infomercial.

[Jennifer]

I'm not against Rapex per se -- see my comment at 1:37 -- but in terms of protecting a woman from physical harm, a gun would work much better since it can be used before the rapist even gets close enough to do anything.

Ouch, Holly, your VC whores story made me wince and I'm not even burdened with the organ in question.

I agree with you that guns would be far better than Rapex, but unfortunately the choice for most women in South Africa is not "Rapex or guns" but "Rapex or nothing."

[Mr Obvious]

It is obvious that as soon as this device hits the market that rapists will start checking the depth of the water before jumping in. If he pull the little snapping turtle out on the end of his (insert object here) then she better have that gun someone mentioned at the begining of this thread. It had 116 comments when I started reading. After no mention of recon in the first twenty I had to jump to the commenting part. Sorry if someone else has already said this. Smart fellow whoever he might be.

[Kaptain K-Kirk]

"I agree with you that guns would be far better than Rapex, but unfortunately the choice for most women in South Africa is not "Rapex or guns" but "Rapex or nothing.""

A phaser set to "vaporize" would be as accessible for alluring twats in South Africa as a plasma screen TV?

What does horny old Nelson M., have to say? Or horny old Bishop Tutu?

[toddb]

"Ehlers, who showed off a prototype on Wednesday, said women had tried it for comfort and it had been tested on a plastic male model but not yet on a live man."

I wonder how the classified is going to read?...Wanted: Product Tester. Self-mutilation experience preferred. Great medical plan included.

[Ron Popeil]

Rapex!

Just set it and forget it!

[joshua corning]

wasn't this a plot point in snowcrash?

I hate that book.

Anyway this should be legal and sold everywhere and the the internet does not need some stupid premtive government control ie "Net Nutrality".

Let go Jenifer, let the market flow though you...feel the market.

[You Know Who]

Just push a broom handle up their snatch first to activate the trap and then rape away as usual.

Comment by: M' at June 23, 2006 06:36 PM

Hell! Couldn't I just use my cigar instead? 🙂

[M']

Rapex, Takes a licking...

Maybe this will work.

[Kara]

In many of these countries where rape is an every day occurance the devises are for UN troops!

[ThomasMc]

It may be marketed for self-defense, but just wait until the first angry girlfriend uses it on her boyfriend, whom she saw kissing another woman.

Or, some ditz forgets to take it out before sleeping with her (soon to be ex-) man.

Then the lawsuits begin. Clearly, they should have foreseen the possibilities.

[kwais]

I am all for giving a woman all the devices she could ever use to defend herself.

I am in favor of selling these things much the same as I am in favor of selling guns.

I could think a way around it if I were a rapist, and I think I could figure out a way around a girl having a gun too. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't encourage women of having every means possible to defend themselves.

[kwais]

I am somewhat confused with the attitude of some people on this forum. The "do we cut hands of thieves" type comments.

To me rape is maybe the worst crime there is. I mean I have heard some reasonable reasons to want to murder someone. It is never acceptable to rape anyone. And I don't think that a rapist should be in society, at all.

The disrespect for a persons ownership of themselves and the disrespect to another persons well being that a rapist has to have is to me completely unnacceptable for anyone who is to be in the same society as me.

No matter what that person does or believes, a rapist is my enemy.

This fucking attitude, of "grin and bear it because we don't want anyone to have a tool to defend themselves, because that tool may not work right, might be misused"

"They shouldn't defent themselves because the method they want to use to defend themselves is not perfect."

[kwais]

Yeah, I know I typed for nothing it maybe a dead thread.

[bago]

Anyone who fails to thoroughly examine the area using most senses before sticking deserves what they get.

[Bee]

Not quite dead! I think that was a fair summation of a really surprising amount of virtual crotch-grabbing. "Better to have South African women continue to be the victims of violence, if it's going to mean that some minute number of nutso women are going to use it to punish non-rapists."

That being said, I would have to agree that a guy zinging on adrenaline or something more exotic may not feel pain the way a normal person would....and could go medieval on the woman in rage at finding himself hooked. And I've been counseled that any show of resistance once the rape is underway is a very bad idea. Never gonna be able to prove or disprove this, however.

I suppose it's best to carry a gun, know how to use it, and be sure to never let yourself get caught in a position where you can't use it....like when your arms are full of groceries, you are ambushed from behind, you're exercising and don't have your gun tucked into your sweats...you know, situations like that.

[Tuning Spork]

I tend to agree with the earliest critique that the use of Rapex would put the victim in more danger than she might otherwise have been. While a barbed clamp on the penis might be painful, I doubt that it'd be incapacitating. (Speaking not from experience, of course.)

I'd say that if a woman wants a non-lethal (or, by law, must carry a non-lethal) defensive weapon, then I'd strongly suggest a strong mace or, better yet, a sprayer of pepper spray laced with CS tear gas. It's smaller than a gun and you don't have to... er... insert it into any of your own orafices.

[smacky]

rob,

Where did I say, or even suggest, that it was funny to mangle a guy's anatomy?!? WTF??
I will take you up on that offer to write some songs together...perhaps not blues songs, though.

That being said, I would have to agree that a guy zinging on adrenaline or something more exotic may not feel pain the way a normal person would....and could go medieval on the woman in rage at finding himself hooked. And I've been counseled that any show of resistance once the rape is underway is a very bad idea. Never gonna be able to prove or disprove this, however.

Maybe it would be a better idea to have an agent that simply dissolves the penis in its entirety, thereby freeing the woman? Or, in the same line of invention, maybe a little guillotine device? (ok, NOW I'm laughing)

[rob]

smacky, I'm sure this thread is dead, but I honestly think that it's not much of a leap based on your comments. A few replays....

smacky sez: "At the risk of sounding like a psycho, if the guy really did wrong the woman badly, I wouldn't feel too sorry for him."

smacky sez: "So? ...Good." In response to "I think this product should be legal, but I agree with Warren that it is something that is probably far more likely to be used against boyfriends or husbands who are suspected of cheating than against an actual rapist."

Ok, maybe not funny to mangle, but certainly it's understandable that I might think that you thought it was OK for plenty of offenses that FAR fall short of rape. I was hoping that you were joking about that, but apparently not!

In other news... Hope your weekend was as groovy as mine!