“Vagina Dentata”: Rapex, the anti-rape female condom
The prototype to Rapex was announced in 2005, and production will make it available in South Africa in the coming months for approximately 15 cents each. It was invented by South African medical technologist Sonette Ehlers, in response to South Africa’s rape epidemic–arguably the highest rate of sexual assault in the world with an estimated one million rapes per year (with an estimated 40% of those against children). Couple that statistic with the highest AIDS rate in the world, and it is small wonder that drastic measures such as Rapex are proposed.
Rapex looks like a female condom, but with one stunning difference: upon penetration, 25 hooklike barbs attach themselves to the skin of the penis, and the device is then transferred from female to male and can only be removed by a doctor. The idea is that the rapist’s pain would disarm him long enough for the victim to get away, and would require him to turn himself in–evidence unmistakeable–in order to avoid permanent damage.
The device’s announcement has met with some criticism, not least of which is that it doesn’t actually prevent a rape, but rather interrupts it. Others charge that it would only be effective for vaginal rapes (and only if it were not detected beforehand), and not at all for gang rape–and may inspire further violence upon the victim. As an AIDS prevention, it appears risky because an infected man’s blood from his wounds may infect his victim. Further, it could be used to frame a man who was lead to believe that sex was consensual. And then there is the philosophical argument that such a measure puts the onus of protection from rape upon the woman herself rather than on law enforcement and on the culture that shrugs when rape occurs.
The part of me that despises rapists and wants to see them “get what they deserve” applauds this innovation as a sort of fear-based gender-levelling: let men know what it’s like to change behavior for safety’s sake, to wonder who might be “armed,” so to speak. However, it seems to me that Rapex’s risks outweigh its benefits. I recognize that from my cushy, American, middle-class, rural soapbox I have truly no concept of what our sisters and their children in such cultural conditions endure, and for me to discourage a tool such as Rapex is perhaps to behave ignorantly–I don’t know. As the mom of five daughters, this is a charged issue for me and adds fervency to my prayers and wishes for their health and safety. As a woman, I mourn for the world in which my sisters feel that wearing razors inside their bodies is a good thing.
More likely the enraged rapist would bludgeon the woman to death and then go find a black market physician to remove it in exchange for several bottles of whiskey.
Comment by Seth R. — May 31, 2007 @ 3:24 am
While it doesn’t apply in cases of gang rape, I would expect that a rapist with 25 barbed hooks in his wang would at least temporarily be unable to focus any attacks against his victim. And if he were silly enough to try to tear the thing off–oh my. I think there’d be ample time to run away in such a situation.
Comment by Bro. Jones — May 31, 2007 @ 6:53 am
I can see, in middle class suburbia, this product being abused. And there is something really creepy about wearing a device in anticipation of abuse. Also, from a legal standpoint, (i know there are lawyers that comment here often) could it be used against a woman during a trial? ie: she obviously anticipated being raped, so why did she knowingly put herself at risk? It makes me uncomfortable as a mother to boys. I’m afraid that it will serve as an assumption of guilt.
Comment by just call me Cassandra... — May 31, 2007 @ 8:00 am
If 40% of rape attacks in Africa are against children, I’m now sure how Rapex would help them. Do they make them small enough for a child? Can they fit through an intact hymen?
Comment by Proud Daughter of Eve — May 31, 2007 @ 8:45 am
There is a side of me that feels visciously justified whenever I hear of weenie-wacking incidents in the aftermath of rape, and another side of me that cannot justify abuse in return for abuse. Particularly the idea of abuse justified by standard practice. I can see how this is a little different in that it’s a form of a booby trap, and after all woman are allowed to get violent to defend their right to not be raped. But as someone commented earlier, I can see this device being abused in order to, well, abuse a spouse maybe. And I don’t see how this would benefit the vast majority of rape victims unless said victim was expecting to be raped, and also I agree that it may induce a higher level of violence on the part of the attacker.
Comment by sare — May 31, 2007 @ 9:36 am
Bro. Jones,
You ought to read up on the psychology of combat and violence against police officers.
I guarantee you, a LOT of these guys are perfectly capable of directed and focused violence and a temporary complete imperviousness to pain. Police officers report that some suspects exhibit a frightening level of pain tolerance and aggression in spite of being either tasered, maced, or severely beaten with batons.
And I have no doubt these guys will be able to find a sexist doctor somewhere willing to do the removal secretly.
This kind of thinking is typical of brutalized and vengeful societies. From scarlet letters placed on adulteresses, to vindictive sterilization of rapist programs, to Roman crucifixions, to public isolation of sex offenders, all of this is based on a brutal and enraged people calling for some sport to sate their own bloodlust.
I personally think this kind of stuff harms the society that does it far more than it harms its criminals.
Comment by Seth R. — May 31, 2007 @ 11:12 am
I saw this on digg a few weeks back. I like that researchers are trying to find practical deterrents to such abuse, but it seems to me that the healthy/safety risks make it infeasible. Additionally, even the low cost of such a device would likely be too high for regular, effective use in many parts of the world, particularly areas where women are at the highest risk of rape. I hope to see more scientific/medical contributions in the future, but rape and other societal ills will likely only be reduced through changes in the society itself. It’s a shame those kinds of results can’t simply be achieved through laboratory work.
Comment by Peter — May 31, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
my husband said the same, seth.
i like that it’s at least a start. sure, there are a lot of things that make this not work, but at least people are addressing the problem, looking for a solution, and thinking outside of the box.
Comment by makakona — May 31, 2007 @ 12:32 pm
wow, now that’s innovative!
my first thought were all positive (get ‘em back!), your post pointed out some negatives, and now all I’m left with is respect for innnovation.
Comment by cchrissyy — May 31, 2007 @ 2:10 pm
Is anyone else thinking that the unsuspecting legitimate date of a somewhat forgetful woman could end up having a very bad experience with this? Or is my read being too affected by Snow Crash?
(You know, the need to get the thing removed by a medical professional would have totally altered the plot . . .)
Comment by Kaimi — May 31, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
Kaimi,
I was just going to make a comment about Snow Crash, but you beat me to it.
Comment by Serenity Valley — May 31, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
I have absolutely no sympathy for the idea that a vindictive or thoughtless woman might hurt innocent men with such a device and therefore it should be banned. Vidictive and thoughtless men have been using sex as a weapon against innocent women for millenia, heaven forbid that sex suddenly be dangerous for men too.
If this thing would, honest to goodness, prevent rape and protect victims of rape then the innocent men of the world wouldn’t mind asking themselves just how safe they feel about sleeping with someone. If you can’t trust a woman enough to be sure she’s not packing something like this then what the heck are you sleeping with her for anyways?
Comment by Starfoxy — May 31, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
I second that starfoxy.
And as to the argument that this does more harm to the society than to the perp…I’m afraid those being victimized by the society in the first place (aka the victims of rape or those who must fear it to the extent that they would have such a weapon put in their body) won’t, quite frankly, give a sh*t what it does to that society. Why protect a society that doesn’t protect you?
Sport to sate their own bloodlust? Right…because it’s the rape victims who are taking pleasure out of causing others pain! PLEASE.
Such nonsense to complain that the reactions to a vengenful, violent society are showing how vengeful and violent the society is!
Comment by Stars — May 31, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
#12, 13,
Not saying I don’t agree that men have it coming. It’s just that, it seems that the women who could use this the most wouldn’t benefit from it (cost, access, circumstance) and so it would end up more harming where it shouldn’t, than helping where it should. Most likely. And the aids thing is a real issue– wounding the penis while it is still in the act of penetration would be more likely to spread STDs than prevent, so it would be inadvisable for, say, women in Africa to use these.
And yeah, men SHOULD know something about the women they have sex with. Women should know something about the men they have consentual sex with, too. But they don’t.
Comment by sare — May 31, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
i just can’t get that out of my head. i’m all giggles!
Comment by mf — May 31, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
Starfoxy,
I’m pretty sure that it wasn’t the women in South Africa who came up with this one.
Comment by Seth R. — May 31, 2007 @ 7:19 pm
Are you thinking of the rape-in-parking-lot-or-dark-alley scenario? Because for that scenario, I agree that a woman would not be “prepared” with Rapex in place.
However, I think Rapex would be effective in situations where a woman might anticipate being raped, and there are such situations. I don’t know how it could legally be used against the woman. It is self-defense. And as for the argument that if a woman anticipated it, she could have removed herself from the scene… well, that is just naive.
“Approximately 28% of victims are raped by husbands or boyfriends, 35% by acquaintances, and 5% by other relatives. (Violence against Women, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1994)”
A woman would be well within her rights to wear a rapex to protect against the rapist husband, boyfriend, acquaintance, or relative, most of whom do not limit themselves to only ONE surprise rape. And protecting oneself or getting out of this type of abusive situation is obviously easier said than done.
I don’t think that any of us here would argue that rape by a “husband” is not rape.
Comment by Sophrosene — May 31, 2007 @ 7:33 pm
My husband said they need to have anal version for males in prison…
Comment by Kelly — May 31, 2007 @ 7:52 pm
Sophrosene, in at least some parts of the world (eg my state of Australia), the self-defense theory probably wouldn’t fly. A former police officer friend of mine told me that if you keep a loaded gun in your nightstand and use it to kill an intruder, you can’t argue self-defense, because obviously your intent was to kill an intruder if the situation ever arose. (This is of course overlooking that part of the law that says it’s highly illegal to keep a loaded gun in your nightstand in the first place.) Instead, he said, what you should do is keep a large pair of scissors there, because the scissors could be there for any number of reasons, and they make a really effective knife. I would imagine that using this product would fall into the same category - you have the intent to cause harm so you couldn’t claim self-defense.
Of course laws are different in different parts of the world, and I’m passing no judgement on the rightness or wrongness of that law, just pointing out that it may not be self-defense in some jurisdictions.
Comment by Quimby — May 31, 2007 @ 7:57 pm
I’m not saying that this particular device is an effective rape deterrent, and to tell the truth many of the points brought up are very good arguments against it’s use. I especially agree with the idea that a man would be more likely to kill his victim after being ‘caught’ by one of these.
There are people out there who would rather see an effective anti-rape device, or law kept off the market (or law books) for no reason other than it’s potential for misuse. What’s more is the potential for misuse is often only under extremely questionable circumstances (why actively have sex with a woman you can’t trust?). They’d rather let women be raped than insist that men learn to protect themselves and control their urges when it comes to sex with questionable women. As if the very idea that men be allowed to be hurt by sex is blasphemy. It’s those people and that mindset that really chaps my hide.
Comment by Starfoxy — May 31, 2007 @ 8:16 pm
Sophrosene,
On the website, I think it said that they haven’t got a version for men to use “yet”.
Comment by Serenity Valley — May 31, 2007 @ 8:21 pm
Preach it sister Starfoxy, preach it.
Twisty had a post a week or two ago that proposed that all sex was presumed to be rape if the woman complained. Ludicrous, but interesting nonetheless. Isn’t the opposite the case now? The burden of proof is on the woman that she didn’t want to have sex, and even in the face of good evidence it’s often reduced to her word against his. Turn that around. Any time a man wants to have sex with a woman, she can turn him in afterwards and say it was rape, and if she does so, then he’s presumed guilty.
Anyhow, it was a fun thought experiment, which I enjoy thinking about more when I read comments like, “but what about the poor men?” Yeesh.
Comment by Ann — May 31, 2007 @ 8:55 pm
I don’t think anyone is sympathizing with rapists.
But yes, I think that in some ways, men have a tough break right now.
Comment by sare — May 31, 2007 @ 8:58 pm
I feel traumatized just by reading this thread. I hate to think of such a world, where something like this would be needed, but I’m all for self defense. I’d put the knives in my hands, though, and just stab anyone who tried it.
Comment by Tatiana — May 31, 2007 @ 9:36 pm
not in regards to rape. But in regards to a less than sympathetic audience when it comes to their rights being violated. e.g. the discussion of how this could be used to harm men who aren’t raping. Used as a tool of abuse of men. When that was mentioned earlier, people just kind of brushed it aside, “well they should know better anyway.”
No, rapists don’t deserve any breaks. But men in general are not all inclined to rape.
Comment by sare — May 31, 2007 @ 11:44 pm
starfoxy– my response to your comment is now #25
Comment by sare — May 31, 2007 @ 11:45 pm
This post made me think of the Monach butterfly. I remember a documentary about them — a bird would eat one, get sick, realize it was poisonous and leave the rest alone forevermore. One butterfly was dead; many thousands of others were saved.
I think that, yes, a man who ‘encountered’ Rapex might bludgeon his victim to death. But I wonder how many more times he’d dare try it.
Women aren’t Monarchs. But yet I think of the lives of those African women and how very, very horrible their lives can be. And maybe the only way to make it better is to radically shift the balance of the power and the fear and the consequences. Somehow.
It’s all so very, very sad.
Comment by Not Ophelia — May 31, 2007 @ 11:46 pm
i’d sure hate it, as a woman, if the device malfunctioned whilst inside me! ouchamonga!
♥
Comment by blue — May 31, 2007 @ 11:46 pm
#27,
I would agree with you if I were sure that it would work that way, as a deterrant and a slow cultivation of caution in men who otherwise wouldn’t worry about raping.
Comment by sare — May 31, 2007 @ 11:53 pm
I agree with NO - this could be a great deterrant.
Comment by Patti — May 31, 2007 @ 11:58 pm
I have qualms about this product, but even if it is effective and I can reconcile those qualms, I wonder if it is really the best solution, or even the best solution right now. Surely the cost would be prohibitive for many women, especially in poverty-stricken countries? Could a person surviving on less than $1 a day really afford to use this?
Comment by Quimby — June 1, 2007 @ 12:02 am
So, these stats are a little old, but may be *why* there is a need for such a product.
2002/2003 – 147 women raped a day in South Africa
http://www.rapecrisis.org.za/rape-statistics.asp
2000 - 21,538 rapes and attempted rapes of children under the age of 18 were reported. This high number may be attributable to a myth that sex with a virgin (even children or infants) cures HIV/AIDS http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25806
Comment by X2 Dora — June 1, 2007 @ 12:08 am
Sare (23) I am genuinely curious what you have in mind when you say that men have a tough break right now in regards to rape.
Comment by Starfoxy — June 1, 2007 @ 12:11 am
And women in general are not all inclined to cry rape or frame a partner for rape.
Comment by Quimby — June 1, 2007 @ 12:57 am
as someone who has been a victim of rape i think this thing is great. the whole comment about the guy thinking it was consensual really buged me…hummmm….I am sure if the woman wants to have sex seh’ll take the thing out, it’s very clear when both people want to have sex and even MORE clear when someone doesn’t. If I lived in a place that had such a high incidence of rape I would definetly get rapex. Not to mention that the thought of having barbed wire on your penis might actually dissuade some men from commiting such violent acts. What I wasn’t clear, is how easy is it to take this out. Could a man see that you are wearing rapex and force you to take it out?
Comment by anonymous — June 1, 2007 @ 1:42 am
34.
but just as men do things vindictively to hurt women in a nonsexual way, women do do things to hurt men in a sexual way. No one is above revenge. In the same way that a handgun can, and often is, used for self defense, it also can be used with malicious intent, and therefor (IMO) should be limited in its use. (did anyone follow that?)
I too, like many many women, have been a victim of rape, but I still would not use this product.
Quimby, Sophrosene,
I guess I’m concerned that this will introduce a scapegoat for punishing rapist. I don’t think it is right for the courts to take the stand that it is a womens responsibility to avoid rape, but that is what happens in many cases. I would rather see the man convicted of his crime, than get off on a technicality due to some temporary vigilante justice.
(did this make sense to anyone? I’m having a hard time being succinct.)
Comment by just call me Cassandra... — June 1, 2007 @ 8:32 am
sorry this should read “no gender is above revenge.” (proofreading: what a concept)
Comment by just call me Cassandra... — June 1, 2007 @ 8:34 am
To be clear, I’m not saying “poor rapists.” I’m also not really saying these things shouldn’t be made or used. If I was a South African politician, I probably wouldn’t say much against it. I just find the situation ugly, that’s all.
I also think that the kind of vengeful thinking that went into the creation of these devices is part and parcel with the mentality behind the other things I mentioned in my comment above. I’m not equating this device with other more severe retributions that men have inflicted on other men and women. But I think it shows the same thought-patterns.
Comment by Seth R. — June 1, 2007 @ 8:34 am
I know, women aren’t inclined to call rape. What I’m saying is somewhat in the same vein as cassandra. Not all men want to abuse women, but sometimes I think that we’re trigger happy (women, society) about men in this way. We have no sympathy for the idea of a man who might be vulnerable to abuse, whereas we get all up in arms when it comes to women being vulnerable to abuse.
Comment by sare — June 1, 2007 @ 8:41 am
Anonymous (#35),
The website says that the device is completely invisible from the outside. Also, you can’t really remove it unless you have the applicator it came with. Unless you want to get the thing stuck on your own finger.
Comment by Serenity Valley — June 1, 2007 @ 10:06 am
Starfoxy (#33)
When I was in college (late 90’s), I knew two guys, one quite well, who were falsely accused. In one case, he was suspended from school immediately, and only many months later did it become clear that there was no guilt on his part. In the other case, the accusation and the official response to it–even though it was resolved within a month–led to a several month long episode of depression. (In both cases the girls involved were well-known to the guys.) Both will carry–in themselves and on their reputations–those stigmas and traumas. Both lost friends, and I don’t think they got another date in college. At least in middle-to-upper income America, unless the girl is obviously and overtly making it up, the presumption is ‘he did it,’ and social and institutional response reflect that presumption of guilt. (As the duke case showed, even when there is strong evidence of a lack of credibility in the accusation, the response follows.)
So, while it may have a place in SA, I can easily see it being used as an entrapment device on today’s college campus, by angry or jealous girls.
Comment by TMD — June 1, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
If it’s like a female condom, does it extend beyond the opening of the vagina?
It seems like if the rapist knows about this possibility, he’d notice it and remove it, since such a crime requires some manual action.
It’s understandable for the woman to do whatever it takes to protect herself, but this solution seems quite dangerous, and not just for the assailant…
Comment by C.L. Hanson — June 1, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
Technically, the man did rape the woman. He would’ve had to in order to end up with a rapex on his penis. So I don’t know that he’d get off on any technicality.
Comment by Sophrosene — June 1, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
A crazy jealous woman already can ruin a man’s life and if she wants to ruin your life she’ll find a way to do it. Whether it’s this rapex thing, false rape charges, giving you STDs, or gunning you down at your apartment. She could spray you with mace, she could claw at your face with her manicure, she could attack you with stilletos, there’s all sorts of ways a woman could ruin a man’s life or cause him physical pain.
And you know what? Those crazy vindictive women don’t have to get off scott free- you can sue for defamation, you can charge her with assault, you can use our great legal system to defend yourself! You are not helpless!
So what if this thing can be misused in a very specific way as a weapon against men? Is that fact going to increase the number of crazy women out to get you? Is it going to increase the number of attacks against men by women? I doubt it. And even if it does increase the number of attacks, it would have to be a reasonably substantial increase to justify banning an effective anti-rape device (and again I’m not saying this thing necessarily is an effective anti-rape device).
The right of men to have carefree sex does not supercede the right of women to not be raped.
Comment by Starfoxy — June 1, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
Starfoxy, you are absolutely right.
I guess I just don’t see how the violence of this device matches up with any good it could do. I mean, at the point that the man would be harmed by the device, the rape has already taken place, right? And how many women would actually be wearing one at the time? I can’t see men who rape being deterred by a slight possibility that a woman may be wearing a weapon inside of her. I just don’t think it would work. I guess what I’m saying is that the risk (using it for abuse) isn’t really outweighed by rape-deterrent type outcomes.
Maybe I’m being a little shortsighted, I dunno.
Comment by sare — June 1, 2007 @ 5:55 pm
The deterrent effect of this device will be short-lived. Once the word gets out, it won’t really deter, because the rapists will then know to check for it.
Comment by Bookslinger — June 1, 2007 @ 11:42 pm
Starfoxy: your rhetoric sounds a bit overblown.
First of all, my comment was in reference to your comment at 33, where you asked “I am genuinely curious what you [here referring to Sare] have in mind when you say that men have a tough break right now in regards to rape.” Thus your more general discussion does not address my comments.
Second, even if it did, frankly, your typical college student is unlikely to have the resources to pursue a defamation suit, and the defendent is unlikely to have the resources to make such a thing worth-while. And the ‘false charges’ prosecution is an equally tough road to hoe. And institutions will so rarely come out and affirm innocence, as opposed to dropping a charge, that getting the stain all the way out is rather hard.
Third, it seems to me that most stable environments–say the US–have functioning social contracts. Under normal circumstances, with such a contract functioning, the day-to-day probability of such an event is so small as to make this sort of a precaution deeply unusual. Thus to be engaging in it, ever, suggests a problem with the user–the user would either be intentionally putting herself in a position in which she felt an elevated danger of rape, or she intended to use it for purposes of entrapment, revenge, etc. In the former case, it seems to me that the person is intentionally and in full knowledge putting herself at risk–one which the manifold range of posible state interventions could mitigate. In this case, the violence, on both sides, takes on a self-fullfilling quality. In the latter instance, well, obviously, she’s engaging in assault and or character assasination.
In a situation where a social contract is not functioning, perhaps South Africa, a different case is possible. But I don’t think in the US.
Comment by TMD — June 2, 2007 @ 12:55 am
Seth R,
How is sterilization of a rapist (Do we really want rapists to ever father a child?) like crucifixion? One is a responsible social decision; one is a brutal way of killing that becomes public spectacle. To say that we must never face violence with any sort of deterrent force seems to me an odd position. Never restrict anyone’s right to anything because of what they’ve done seems to be the end product of your examples.
And I agree that there are reasons this might be attractive in places where there is in effect a war going on. Aids is so prevalent in Africa, and I think that it must be more prevalent among rapists, that being raped is probably something like rolling the dice on a death sentence, and if you live, it would effectively damage your legitimate relationships because you would never know. Of course, this doesn’t solve the problem on the individual level, but perhaps it’s reached the point where some women are willing to give their lives to the common cause of deterring this. And though 15 cents might mean a lot to these women, who is to say that they wouldn’t be willing to sacrifice a lot, when men in some of the countries in Africa are spending so much more on weapons for their wars.
In America is another thing. I’m willing to let Africa figure out how this is useful to them. Here, it may be a bit less clear what uses it could serve. I don’t know if it’s appropriate to declare war of that sort here.
Comment by Steve H — June 2, 2007 @ 1:58 am
TMD, your reasoning about how a user of this condom is effectively implying that they are knowingly putting themselves at risk has been addressed and refuted in the gun-control debate. The analog to your argument would be to say that someone who carries a concealed handgun is _expecting_, with almost certainty, to be in a situation where they will need to use it for self-defense.
Anti-rape condoms, handguns, seat-belts, smoke alarms, fire-extinguishers, etc. are not purchased because people expect to or want to use them. They are purchased because people realize a possibility exists that they might be needed, and that the probability that they will be needed is non-zero. To purchase them and have them at the ready does not mean people believe the probability of their need is certain or even over 50%.
They are “just in case” items, perhaps like insurance. People don’t want to be in situations where they have to use deadly force to defend themselves, or be in a car accident where the seat-belts will be needed to peform their function, or have a fire that will require the use of a fire-extinguisher, or even be in a situation where they will say “gee, that smoke alarm saved our lives”. We’d rather never have a fire in the first place, and therefore never hear the smoke alarm.
On any given day, what’s your probability of being in a car crash in which seat-belts will be needed? Pretty small. Yet you probably use them religiously, and many people used them even before their use was mandated by law.
To be prepared for a violent attack, a car wreck, a fire, is not to expect it. It’s merely to realize the chance is non-zero, and that the user of the item in question beleives that the “insurance value” of the item and its use is worthwhile in comparison to the cost of the possible adverse event.
I would also argue that we have areas in the United States where the social contract has broken down. In some areas of our inner cities, well over 50% of the girls are sexually assaulted before they reach adulthood, and it was reported in hard-core places like Cabrini Green, it approached 100%.
It is reported that 25% of all women in America will have been raped at some point in their lives. (Sorry, don’t remember the source of it off the top of my head.) Since incidence of violent crime is very skewed along racial lines, I would venture that the occurance of rape among minority women is well over 50%, and approaches 75%.
Having lived and worked in the inner-city for.several years, and been involved with Crime Watch, talked off the record with street cops, taken the “citizens academy” from the local police dept, I would declaratively state that the “Social Contract” has already broken down in our inner cities. Here’s a recent news article attesting to that:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070602/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/crime_fighting
I think an even better solution to the problem of violence against women, is not the anti-rape condom, but the ultimate in feminine protection, a concealed .357 Magnum in a specially designed purse/holster, training, and plenty of practice at a range. Now THAT is the real deterrent.
Comment by Bookslinger — June 2, 2007 @ 9:38 am
Bookslinger,
what is your opinion of things like mace and pepper spray? Do they work? Or do they just anger the rapist and make things worse for the victim?
Comment by sare — June 2, 2007 @ 10:30 am
Ragarding Mace or pepper spray, in law enforcement we are trained how and when to use these products. We are sprayed point blank with them in order to be certified to carry them. The symptoms vary widely with these sprays and they cannot be trusted as a failsafe. Many people can and will be able to work through any symptoms. IMO they make the carrier relatively unsafe because they think they will be able to ward off any attacker. Then there is the issue of backspray. These products will get on the sprayer, whether it is serious backspray or just on the hands, and if the sprayer/victim is not fully prepared, could render them helpless. I suppose something is better than nothing as long as you know the risks involved.
Comment by deputymommy — June 2, 2007 @ 12:34 pm
I’m guessing that the anti-rape condom is probably cheaper than arming every woman with a .357 (plus training).
though I thoroughly believe in woman being trained to defend themselves, with the anti-rape condom there is no risk of loose bullets killing innocent bystanders in surrounding buildings etc…
Comment by G — June 2, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
Steven H.
I never claimed to prescribe how individual women should respond to violence.
But I do think that the societal movement forming around this particular idea represents a sort of essential brutality of mind - the same brutality which I believe informed the other sort of retributive measures I mentioned.
It’s primarily vengeance-based.
Comment by Seth R. — June 2, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
I’d like to point out that rape is not about sex. It’s about control and power, which means, in turn, that it has nothing to do with men learning how to control themselves, etc. At the risk of sounding crass, there are two very affective ways to get around this device; for the rapist to either torture the woman by inserting something else inside of her first, or by oral or anal rape instead. Can you honestly tell me that won’t become an issue?
Comment by Tryskel — June 3, 2007 @ 10:42 pm
Tryskel-it has become an issue.
Sadly, in areas where Rapex has been popularized, rapists are choosing to use an object to set it off and then proceeding to rape girls and women. Sometimes, this makes them even more violent. Other times, rapists do indeed opt for anal or oral penetration.
Comment by Jessica — June 3, 2007 @ 11:23 pm
I might be reiterating what someone else has already said, because I find all your comments fascinating but I couldn’t wait to read the rest of them before bringing up something on my mind.
Here’s what i’m thinking: Typical (at least appearance-wise) latex female condom + 25 hook-like barbs + some sort of “hook-upon-penetration” apparatus, inserted into a lady’s who-ha? How can this not be problematic? For the woman wearing it, I mean. The mechanics are not working out in my head.
Moral, legal, and societal concerns aside, how can this be safe?? I’d be terrified that some sort of malfunction would leave me with a vaginal massacre. Or what if your finger accidently slips while adjusting it? Then you have an embarrassing trip to the ER with a Rapex on your hand?
This is a little simplistic, and I am in no way downplaying the much deeper issues of morality, but I didn’t want to ignore these concerns in my mind.
Comment by PllwFghtChmpn — June 4, 2007 @ 12:52 am
I’m thinking they found logistical ways for this to be taken out without hurting the woman, or else it loses it’s purpose.
I don’t see it as vegeance based-it’s hard for us to understand, but we are living in such a different place with different sensibilities and very different realities. Young women are truly vulnerable in these places and the fact the rates of being rape are so high makes it as a protective device to me, and it’s also an attempt to catch criminals. It’s horrible, but sex is used as a murderous weapon over there, it sounds like an absolute nightmare, and the stats make it clear it’s not.
Comment by karina — June 4, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
Does anyone have a link to a demo? Otherwise, I think this is BS.
Comment by anonymous — June 4, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
People who have horses know that stallions not fit to breed are usually gelded. It makes them far more socially agreeable creatures, removes many of their violent tendencies, and they tend to get along with other horses and humans much better than those left intact. This has been practiced as long as humans have had a relationship with horses.
I’m all for proven sex offenders to be gelded. Works for horses, why not humans? Seems a no-brainer to me.
Anyway, food for thought (and only a partial TJ)…
Comment by Rich — June 4, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
Even rapists are smarter than horses. Lets say this thing does start to hurt some rapists, then good, we have caught a few. Then the rapists are going to start carrying their little doctor kits so they can do a quick exam to make sure everything is ok. Then what?
I think Sonette Ehlers created this thing for one of two reasons. Either out of vengence, or the thought that it could be used as a deterrent. If the victim is using this thing out of vengence, she must get raped in order to find the desired outcome(Also, why would any victim want the attackers blood inside them?). If the victim is using the product as a deterrent by informing the attacker and hopefully scaring him away, then the attacker can rape the victim another way. I see this thing causing more problems and injury.
Comment by anonymous — June 4, 2007 @ 9:39 pm
An arms race is not a solution to the problem of rape.
Comment by Seth R. — June 5, 2007 @ 5:54 am
Although using the anti-rape condom appears to be justified (if it actually would work), I find it almost unbearably disturbing that the female is actaully using a devise that is as cruel as her offender. Do two wrongs really make a right, especially when they are both so incredibly wrong?
Comment by Shila — June 27, 2007 @ 1:51 am
In the end I think that cruely will only lead to more cruelty. We should invest our energy into more effective methods of prevention.
Comment by Shila — June 27, 2007 @ 2:00 am
What an excellent idea..as a deterrent, that is. If only women were to have “teeth” down there for use at will. I think that all women should aim to wear these all the time, only removing them for consensual sex…
(or atleast propagate the idea that we do ; )
Scary, huh? Much like the thought of rape..
Comment by shanghai_beauty — July 10, 2007 @ 6:48 pm
I agree that the device will lose its effectiveness quickly. Rapists will learn to check for it or worse they will immediately threaten to kill the woman (possibly with a gun) if they do not prove they ae not wearing the device.
Comment by joe s — July 10, 2007 @ 9:14 pm
(to number 1)
Actually, I only had to give him a case of beer.
Comment by Bob Dole — July 14, 2007 @ 3:45 am
pls send me video of how to put in action female condoms with modal or cartoon
pls give me reply of this email on above mention email id
i am waiting for your reply
reagrad from
krishna
Comment by rathod krishna — July 14, 2007 @ 4:02 am
If these devices become common, a rapist simply has to carry a carrot in his pocket. An effective rapex removal tool.
Comment by don — November 8, 2007 @ 11:23 pm
wow! i love how this topic has opened up a real conversation about rape. It is never talked about enough. i am writing a play right now called RAPED. i am looking for those of you who would like to give your oppions on rape, or experiences. please feel free to comment here…i will check back on this page from time to time, or send me a message. i would love to use any infomation you can give me in my show. i will definely be covering this vagina dentata busness. sorry for the spelling errors. got to go.
Comment by dani — December 5, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
This device will never work, it will just get women killed. Think about it, a rapist is going to insert his fingers before having sex to try and get the vagina wet. He is going to discover the device, remove it and then kill the women in a fit of rage. Rapists are not of sound mind and they will snap if they find this.
Comment by Barnacules — December 19, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
The SOLUTION:
Spread the word in Africa that rape is the CAUSE of AIDS.
Cruelly simple and effective.
Comment by Starchild — January 22, 2008 @ 9:32 pm
Anonymous in #60 says that “(Also, why would any victim want the attackers blood inside them?)”
Let’s see, if i were being raped, which would I rather have inside of me, the attacker’s blood, or the attacker’s semen?
Both bodily fluids from an HIV infected individual can transmit disease, so with or without RAPEX, the virus could still be transmitted. At least i wouldn’t be infected with HIV AND pregnant- pregnant with a child who would also become infected with HIV.
Comment by aware of the pros and cons — January 24, 2008 @ 9:59 pm
I have a better idea, one that will work for women with intact hymens.
A small butt plug containing a small retractable needle containing a deadly poison.
While man is on top, women reaches down, removes plug, flips open safety cap, presses button to arm, and stabs attacker in the back.
Comment by Ron — February 3, 2008 @ 7:26 am
One thing i can see happening with this device is that a woman armed with one will go looking for rapists, with the intent of getting raped and injuring the rapist. In US law it’s called ‘lying in wait’ and if the ambush results in the death of the “attacker” the charge is first-degree murder in some places. I can see some rape victems desiring vengence becoming prostitutes and using these things on their customers, some of whom are not rapists.
I also see that in the current political climate, any man that ends up in the hospital with one of the attaced to him is going to get the book thrown at him. My wife knows a married couple where the wife beat the husband physically. He called the police and when they came they took away the husband and charged him with asault; while the wife was telling them that he hadn’t done anything.
Comment by darren — February 21, 2008 @ 5:42 pm
I’m sorry, but I don’t think there are many (or any, beyond some small number who are mentally ill) women who would go around “looking for rapists” so they can be raped and exact revenge. Rape is horrific to go through, and that kind of trauma is not going to disappear even if the woman has some sort of way of attacking the rapist. I mean, if this were a really likely scenario, why aren’t more women going around with guns, waiting for some guy to rape them so they can shoot him? I think most women (most humans) know that even if violence is done in self-protection, it can still be traumatic–how likely is it that there are lots of people who want to subject themselves not only to the trauma of being raped, but ALSO to the trauma of inflicting violence against someone? I also find it absurd that you think it is likely that some rape victims would become prostitutes as a scheme to become avengers.
Comment by Hannah G — February 21, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
I think darren’s proposal sounds like a premise for an episode of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, whether ripped from the headlines or no.
Comment by hawkgrrrl — April 4, 2008 @ 10:59 pm
60 and 72
Wouldn’t the condom prevent blood from ever touching the rape victim?
Comment by erika — May 8, 2008 @ 12:30 am
Seth R…….
I truly wonder if you would have these same sympathetic views towards rapists if your wife, mother, or daughter were ever raped? Luckily, I have never been a victim of rape. I do however have a close friend that was. It changed her permanently. If you have never talked in detail to someone who has been through this you cannot begin to understand what these poor victims go through or how severe the psychological damage can be. I also fail to see how this device is vengeful. Vengeful would be if the victim sought out the rapist and chopped off the offending appendix.
I have a hard time understanding why we live in a society where we worry more about the rights of criminals than those of victims.
As far as your argument about women using this to seek revenge or falsely accuse an innocent man, unfortunately any person, man or woman, can falsely accuse another of an act they are innocent of.
Rape does not just hurt or destroy women, it hurts and destroys men and families also. I am sure the husband and family of a woman that is raped also suffers greatly. They too deal with the psychological impact. Many marriages end in divorce after the strain caused as a result of rape, etc.
It is not hard to understand why someone who worked with victims of rape would have invented this after seeing first hand the devastation this crime causes.
Comment by Lily — May 12, 2008 @ 10:19 pm
What if the bloke wore a condom? Wouldn’t the hooks just dig into the condom and not his penis?
And you would need two of these incase the rapist decided to take you to brown town.
Comment by Charles — May 27, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
#79
My guess? It’s a condom, not a bullet proof vest.
If it sticks well enough to warrant surgical removal, it seems like it would go right through a little latex and into flesh. But this is, of course, only a guess.
Comment by Nora — June 26, 2008 @ 1:10 am
I think it’s great! Anything that empowers women not to be a victim and for would-be rapists to think twice about assaulting a woman is a GO! Why all this empathy for the projected male victim (a very low percentage of cases in which men are wrongly accused/convicted)? The millions - yes millions - of women raped in this world (and those who are at risk) need your sympathy and your protection - and any help that discourages or prevents assaults is a step in the right direction. Most of the comments written above I find disturbing; do these comments stem from our fear to challenge the status quo? Are we afraid to stand up for ourselves and for women? Rape is still tolerated - in practice - both by law enforcement, and societal messages. Let’s change that! Let’s get everyone to say NO to rape and rapists, so this world can be safe for everyone.
Comment by jonda — July 30, 2008 @ 8:07 am
In S. Africa, where rape is a weapon of war, a fast acting poison would be advisable and, probably, effective.
Comment by John — August 19, 2008 @ 4:06 pm
I agree with you John. It would also be great for eradicating the rape gene.
I cannot understand why everybody fears this might hurt anyone else than a real offender. I mean, only a rapist prefers the sole action of penetration. Somebody who truly loves the woman would probably do some foreplay like fingering or licking before penetrating, and then i am quite confident this vaginal insert couldn’t go unnoticed.
Comment by Just another another guy — October 12, 2008 @ 6:14 pm
I think this is a good way to scare men in Africa who have intentions of rape, because after word is spread about these things they will be extrememly cautious. However, is it easy to take out? Is it visible? If so, the male could search her and take it out if he knows about them. So yes, I think it would help with RAPE for some time, but how long? The main thing I am worried about is we already have some freaks out there, serial killers, perverts, satanists, and other twisted people. I feel that if these are brought to the US or Europe, or anywhere else in the world, will women use them to attack men? Prostitutes could use them to rob men, all sorts of chaos! Hell, if a teenage girl had a bad grudge against a guy, she could get a bad idea to use it against him.
In this case, I say NO to this device. It may help, but more likely than not it will eventually be used for evil.
Comment by skatinbum4 — December 1, 2008 @ 11:55 am
Hello. And Bye.
Comment by kookimebux — February 1, 2009 @ 12:38 pm
Rapists are terrible people that should be given what they deserve, but this is just too far. For one, I’m fairly sure that it would increase violence against victims, pain tolerance becomes incredibly high with large amounts of adrenaline in the bloodstream. Second what if a wife or a girlfriend forgets to remove the device. Third, it could be used intentionally against men. Just imagining the pain this thing could cause makes me crawl in my skin.
Comment by Alec — May 11, 2009 @ 5:45 pm
All in all, I am proud of the fact that there is some thing that could possibly protect these children and women. It has been a long hard road for these people and I give them all hope that the men in their society will be men for a change and protect them, but we all know that will never happen, so why not??
Woman have had the short end of the stick for a while and even if this is only used once, the other men will probably think twice before messing with another victim! So maybe it will not be needed for long and they will become human in an effort to save their penis’! We can only hope that the one doing the raping does not have aids, but it would have been spread either way so…go for it! Scare those pricks into a corner of shame and bloody weiners and just do it!
I have been raped numerous times and I live in America!! Those poor woman and children face it everyday!! Will no one stand up to fight for them? If they need me to act as a claw ~I will be the first to test it!! No problem! Small sacrifice for millions of children being forced into sexual slavery. Most of them die giving birth becuase their little bodies can’t handle it. Let’s nip this thing right in the dick! Seriously~I would not mind being raped and beaten if it will stop the children from being targeted!!
Comment by notahoe — June 1, 2009 @ 11:17 am
I almost cried with joy when I read about this controversial device and admittedly have a hard time understanding how anyone who has tried to remain informed regarding worldwide issues of rape could react differently. However, there are many intelligent arguments against its use and I was surprised at many that I hadn’t thought of.
Still, the issue remains statistical. I think any studies that could possibly be carried out using women who wanted to use these things in high risk areas would be needed before any concrete statement on this thing’s effectiveness could be made, but IN GENERAL the cons seem to involve unusually extreme situations and the pros seem to address the realities that are shockingly apparent in underdeveloped parts of the world (including some areas in America). According to one brochure (http://www2.gmu.edu/dpt/unilife/sexual//brochures/WorldStats2005.pdf) 1 out of every 3 women will be raped, and as anyone who has studied the issue knows, many rapes go unreported either due to shame, intimidation, or unfair cultural standards. ONE OUT OF EVERY THREE!!!!! And another source I saw (http://www.rainn.org/statistics) reported that only 6% of rapists will ever spend a day in jail. This isn’t to say they aren’t identified or punished someone, but the point is most of them are still out there. And the vast majority of sexual addictions that fuel many rapists are progressive, meaning rapists often follow a pattern of becoming bolder, more aggressive and more violent. Imagine if something had somehow intimidated the other 94% of the rapists who got away? How many women would have been spared?
This thing definitely isn’t perfect. But it’s a good start. I wish we lived in a world where brute force and violence could be stopped with marshmallows and butterflies instead of an internal bear trap, but WAKE UP! This has been happening for thousands, probably millions of years, and it’s not likely to stop soon. So if being absolutely desperate for some kind of action makes me a vindictive, man-hating sadist then guilty as charged. It’s very likely that, as a woman, I will ALWAYS relate more to the woman who did nothing to deserve an attack than I will to the man who suffers permanent genital damage do to his own choices. But despite my biased view, there is a logic that can’t be denied. One in three women will be raped. Many of them probably wish they had had a device like this at the time of their rape, and any man who has been through this, even if not convicted of rape, would think twice before raping another victim. I’m guessing the number of men who will be framed or attacked by a psychotic, Rape-AXE wielding woman are comparatively low.
Yes, SOME men become more violent and do not respond to pain. This is especially true if they are on some kind of drug at the time. And yet, considering how charged this issue is, I’d say the MAJORITY of men would experience an excruciating shock that would at least alter their future decisions, if not their decisions at the time of the attack. Also, to say that fighting back would make a man who is in the act of raping a defenseless woman more likely to harm her is statistically not true. I’m sure that it would be true in SOME instances, and those unfortunate cases would be absolutely horrifying. But statistically, when a woman fights back in some form and the stakes are raised for the man (either the woman screams and he is afraid of being found out, or it’s just more work than he was counting on) the man GENERALLY backs off. Those who don’t were probably more driven, determined and violent than your average rapist anyway, and the chances of a woman walking away from an attack like that are already quite slim.
Also, I think statistically a woman who was not wearing one of these during a rape, especially in areas where both rape and AIDS are common such as South Africa, is already at a ridiculously high risk of being infected. I think in those cases, this device would only help. Yeah, the guys blood is a factor, but if he’s trying to rape her other bodily fluids are already present, so the additional blood isn’t going to change much in terms of that grim reality. A condom would probably prevent some, if not all of these fluids from making contact.
Another thing to think about: most sexual deviants are victims of sexual abuse themselves. This is a cycle, and it can be slowed if not stopped. I think anything that slows it to ANY degree is worth implementing.
Comment by Just a girl — June 16, 2009 @ 6:44 pm
Please excuse the typos in my response - I got a little excited about this idea
Comment by Just a girl — June 16, 2009 @ 6:49 pm
In response to comments and particularly #84.
First, women aren’t just raped by guys and aren’t only raped vaginally. If the makers are proposing women go around with these things inserted vaginally, anally and even orally it is a truly ridiculous idea which makes little to no sense.
Second, while rape of women or men is a truly barbaric crime, except in circumstances such as incarceration we all should exercise due judgement in the situations we get ourselves into.
While not “blaming” these women and men, in the case of partner crimes, every second victims are alone with questionable partners they, not society are responsible for what happens to them. The pledge that goes to the frat house gets drunk and gets raped as a result of hazing should be held responsible for putting himself in a vulnerable position unable to defend himself.
It’s not society’s place to provide him with 24 hour security. The same goes for women that go to frat parties or on dates with guys they don’t know.
Finally, for those truly naive that believe this thing would deter institutional rape be it in Africa or elsewhere this is a fantasy only enjoyed by middle class white/european housewives.
Institutional rapes rarely if ever take place one to one, they are often mass events such as a group entering a village and seizing women and they are virtually always relay events or group rapes. In such cases if a quick thinking woman were to theoretically have time to put this thing in, once the first man is injured, the next guy won’t be, and not only would this cost her her life but would probably result in the revenge killing of her family and perhaps even the entire village. Don’t forget, these guys are used to losing men in battle but they are well known for exacting revenge and they would do this gleefully.
Overall, whats disturbing to me is the presumptions you folks labor under on these boards. You presume that African or Eastern European women(the other undocumented place of high incidences of group rape) are sitting in their villages/homes waiting for you to create something that they can insert in their helpless bodies. These women share information, stay in groups and have even armed themselves. These prudent steps have reduced group rapes. Your rage against and eagernness to get back at the men in your lives speak perhaps to issues you need to work out in your own individual lives and societies. If you can take your cues from these women try and invest time in being prudent and talking to the men in your life rather than trying to preach for to others to strike back with these silly, unsanitary, dangerous ideas.
Comment by BytheWayJill — September 3, 2009 @ 1:24 pm
This device would easily fail because Women would begin to get raped analy. Men would begin to anticipate these devices and they would instead do anal rape on women. This would just start spreading hiv around even more
Comment by guy — November 14, 2009 @ 11:41 pm
How is are your assumptions here any different from those who ask, why did you get in the car of a man you didn’t trust, or why did you move in with a man you didn’t trust? Being deceived does not make someone deserve to be raped, nor does it make someone deserved to be framed for rape.
I’ve seen both men and women set up their spouse for false domestic violence charges in order to gain the advantage in divorce court, e.g. for custody, etc. If this device becomes available, there are women planning a divorce that will use this to frame their husbands for rape.
I’ve also seen cases where the timing of a divorce was bad for various procedural reasons, where the lawyer recommended that the party wanting the divorce effect a fake “reconciliation” with the other one, so they dismiss the divorce, move assets, etc., and then re-file. So it’s already established that spouses planning to divorce use sex as a weapon, that they frame each other for violence in order to get a strategic advantage in the divorce. In South Africa, this device might do more good than harm. But in America, this is going to be used more as a tool to frame the innocent than as an actual protection against rape.
Comment by Christian — November 15, 2009 @ 2:53 am
I’m with #88 which steers a middle course between 90s cynicism and Starfoxys bloodthirstiness and indifference to innocence. #90 says put reponsibility on the female rape victim, starfoxy says put the reponsibility on male innocents that get framed. A pox on both houses.
To 90, It is a good thing that white housewives sympathize with with african victims. Give them more time and they might come up with something that actually is useful.
Comment by pat the destroyer — November 15, 2009 @ 1:22 pm