PDA

View Full Version : Rape-aXe- what do you think?


Brita
06-22-2010, 10:18 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-rape_device

An anti-rape female condom using a different design was invented by Sonnet Ehlers, a South African woman. Ehler was motivated to create it while working as a blood technician with the South African Blood Transfusion Service, during which time she met many rape victims. Initially called RapeX, the name was changed in 2006 upon discovering that RAPEX is also an EU warning system against dangerous goods on the market.

The Rape-aXe is a latex sheath embedded with shafts of sharp, inward-facing barbs that would be worn by a woman in her vagina like a tampon. If an attacker were to attempt vaginal rape, his penis would enter the latex sheath and be snagged by the barbs, causing the attacker excruciating pain during withdrawal and giving the victim time to escape. The condom would remain attached to the attacker's body when he withdrew and could only be removed surgically, which would alert hospital staff and police. Like most condoms, Rape-aXe also usually prevents pregnancy and the transmission of HIV and sexually transmitted Infections.

Rape-aXe was unveiled on August 31, 2005 in South Africa. Mass production was scheduled to begin in April 2007.

Ehler mentioned that she was inspired to create RAPEX (later renamed to Rape-aXe) when a patient who had been raped stated, "If only I had teeth down there," suggesting the myth of the vagina dentata.

Critics have objected to Ehlers' invention as "vengeful, horrible, and disgusting" and oppose its planned sale in drugstores.

It is like we are going back to the days where women were forced to wear chastity belts. It is a terrifying thought that women are being made to adapt to rape by wearing these devices ... Women would have to wear this every minute of their lives on the off-chance that they would be raped.
—Lisa Vetten (Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, South Africa)
This is a medieval instrument, based on male-hating notions and fundamentally misunderstands the nature of rape and violence against women in this society.
—Charlene Smith
Ehler responded to criticism in the FAQ section of her website: "As with everything in life there will be negative attitudes and I can't be responsible for people who refuse to educate men and feel the device is medieval," and responds by calling the Rape-aXe "a medieval device for a medieval deed."

It has been available for a few years now, and was somewhat promoted for women prior to the World Cup. South Africa has the highest rate of rape in the world.

Ivhon
06-22-2010, 10:23 AM
I got no problems with it....at least until the woman forgets to take it out :eek:

When the rape rate is as high as it is in Africa, Im not sure you have the luxury to complain about "male-hating" and "medieval."

Don't want your dick caught in a trap? Don't rape. Pretty simple.

JSUCamel
06-22-2010, 10:28 AM
Don't want your dick caught in a trap? Don't rape. Pretty simple.

I don't think it's that simple at all. Women can be predators too. Could you imagine meeting a girl at a bar (or if you wanna be un-PC about it, a bonfire) and going back to her place, and you're about to get laid, and BAM, your dick gets caught in the equivalent of a barbed wire fence, because some woman hates men so much that she'd do that on purpose? And there are women out there who would do that...

Ivhon
06-22-2010, 10:33 AM
I don't think it's that simple at all. Women can be predators too. Could you imagine meeting a girl at a bar (or if you wanna be un-PC about it, a bonfire) and going back to her place, and you're about to get laid, and BAM, your dick gets caught in the equivalent of a barbed wire fence, because some woman hates men so much that she'd do that on purpose? And there are women out there who would do that...

I might be tempted to do something that most rapists do not do. Which would be engage in a bit of foreplay.

Of course, if this thing gets widely used then the rapists will adapt and check with their fingers first.

Davian93
06-22-2010, 10:35 AM
Awesome...just awesome.


Rapists should be punished with castration...people that falsely accuse others of rape should be punished just as severely.

Brita
06-22-2010, 11:04 AM
I don't think it's that simple at all. Women can be predators too. Could you imagine meeting a girl at a bar (or if you wanna be un-PC about it, a bonfire) and going back to her place, and you're about to get laid, and BAM, your dick gets caught in the equivalent of a barbed wire fence, because some woman hates men so much that she'd do that on purpose? And there are women out there who would do that...

Ya, that's what a girl at work said too. You know what- I can't say I honestly give a shit. The table will be turned for a change, and then men might know what it's like to be worried about being sexually exploited and "anti-raped" by a woman.

Ok, I care a bit. But honestly, everything can be abused. Women just don't have as many options as men do to dole out abuse. Women now have an invented device that will mostly protect, but may do some harm. Men are born with one hanging between their legs.

Of course, if this thing gets widely used then the rapists will adapt and check with their fingers first.

Or an object :( Goddamit! Why won't men just stop raping us?

Ivhon
06-22-2010, 11:08 AM
Ya, that's what a girl at work said too. You know what- I can't say I honestly give a shit. The table will be turned for a change, and then men might know what it's like to be worried about being sexually exploited and "anti-raped" by a woman.

Ok, I care a bit. But honestly, everything can be abused. Women just don't have as many options as men do to dole out abuse. Women now have an invented device that will mostly protect, but may do some harm. Men are born with one hanging between their legs.



Or an object :( Goddamit! Why won't men just stop raping us?

That would be the best solution, yes. Then neither women nor men would have anything to worry about. Kumbaya.

Davian93
06-22-2010, 11:12 AM
Make actual castration the punishment for a proven rape...guarantee it'd cut down on the # of rapes occurring.

The problem is, just like the death penalty, what if someone is wrongly accused or its one of the "they were both drunk, had sex, and then 3 days later she says it was rape BS cases", etc etc. Kinda hard to uncastrate someone.

Ivhon
06-22-2010, 11:14 AM
Make actual castration the punishment for a proven rape...guarantee it'd cut down on the # of rapes occurring.

The problem is, just like the death penalty, what if someone is wrongly accused or its one of the "they were both drunk, had sex, and then 3 days later she says it was rape BS cases", etc etc. Kinda hard to uncastrate someone.

Precisely why that is an impractical idea. Sadly, I'm not sure there are any truly good ideas other than parents - particularly fathers - teaching boys to respect women. Even that won't be failsafe - but it would certainly cut down on a lot of the stuff.

Brita
06-22-2010, 11:30 AM
Precisely why that is an impractical idea. Sadly, I'm not sure there are any truly good ideas other than parents - particularly fathers - teaching boys to respect women. Even that won't be failsafe - but it would certainly cut down on a lot of the stuff.

Yep, my husband had "the talk" with our son last week. He gave me a bit of a synopsis and I think he did a great job. After the details of how it all works, he explained the importance of respect and "no means no" etc. To be honest, I hadn't even thought about that, but for my husband it was a crucial part of the conversation. That's why I love him :)

Crispin's Crispian
06-22-2010, 11:32 AM
Precisely why that is an impractical idea. Sadly, I'm not sure there are any truly good ideas other than parents - particularly fathers - teaching boys to respect women. Even that won't be failsafe - but it would certainly cut down on a lot of the stuff.

I know what you're saying Ivhon, but it's not even about respecting women. If you teach boys to "respect women" you're putting women in a different class already and thereby sowing the seeds for discrimination. How about teaching all kids to respect all other people, without regard to gender?

As for the Rape-aXe, I don't have a problem with it other than the horrible sick feeling I get when I think that it is even necessary. I think the possibility of abuse is so slim it's negligible. A bigger problem is that power-hungry men might just kill women instead, especially if a woman develops a reputation for using the device.

Davian93
06-22-2010, 11:44 AM
Scary scenario: Woman meets a guy at a pub, takes him back to her place for some freaky deaky action, forgets she has this device on for whatever reason, they get busy and BOOM! that's some major pain after the first insertion.

Kinda get weak-kneed just thinking about it.

Ivhon
06-22-2010, 12:26 PM
[QUOTE=Crispin's Crispian;102128]I know what you're saying Ivhon, but it's not even about respecting women. If you teach boys to "respect women" you're putting women in a different class already and thereby sowing the seeds for discrimination. How about teaching all kids to respect all other people, without regard to gender?

/QUOTE]

Lotsa things. One - a big part of teaching is modeling...not just a chat or two, but living the message you set. For example, if you talk about how people of different races are valuable but your kids never see you having any interactions (particularly positive) with people of different races it belies the message. As a father, your (generic "you") children need to see you treat your wife and other women respectfully - both in her/their presence and when there are no women around.

Of course you teach children to respect all people. However, you can't pretend that differences don't exist. Even very very young children can tell the physiological differences between races and sexes (children begin differentiating race at 6-9 months old). Pretending that everyone is the same when clearly they are not sends a confusing and conflicting message - and allows them to develop prejudice on their own. Bias in children is as much self-constructed as taught. The best way to combat bias is to honestly acknowledge differences where they exist (establishes trust with your message being congruent to what the child observes), explain - regularly - that those differences don't mean better or worse, and most important let children witness you - as a trusted and admired person who is like them - having positive and respectful interactions with the outgroup.

Men and women are different in obvious ways. Men are generally larger, sound different and usually have penises. Women generally are smaller, sound different and typically have obvious breasts. Men and women behave differently - hard to tell how much of that behavioral difference is cultural and how much is genetic, but some of both is definitely involved. Have to acknowledge that in a nonjudgmental, respectful way.

Sorry to babble. Future dissertation is likely to be along these lines.

Neilbert
06-22-2010, 12:38 PM
Ya, that's what a girl at work said too. You know what- I can't say I honestly give a shit. The table will be turned for a change, and then men might know what it's like to be worried about being sexually exploited and "anti-raped" by a woman.

And Feminism rears its ugly head...

A bigger problem is that power-hungry men might just kill women instead, especially if a woman develops a reputation for using the device.

This is the real problem I see, still it is hard to tell if the benefit is worth the cost. Thankfully it is not a choice I will have to make.

Brita
06-22-2010, 12:42 PM
And Feminism rears its ugly head...


It's not feminism, Neilbert, it's called anger.

Davian93
06-22-2010, 12:44 PM
And Feminism rears its ugly head...

I'm sorry...WHAT?!?


What Brita said.

the silent speaker
06-22-2010, 12:48 PM
his penis would enter the latex sheath and be snagged by the barbs, causing the attacker excruciating pain during withdrawal and giving the victim time to escape.
How does the victim manage to escape with the rapist's penis (with, presumably, the rest of him still attached to it) snagged inside her vagina?

Ivhon
06-22-2010, 12:50 PM
How does the victim manage to escape with the rapist's penis (with, presumably, the rest of him still attached to it) snagged inside her vagina?

The barbs are only on one side of the condom...when the man pulls out, the condom comes (poor word choice) with. Kinda like a bee stinger.

Davian93
06-22-2010, 12:51 PM
How does the victim manage to escape with the rapist's penis (with, presumably, the rest of him still attached to it) snagged inside her vagina?

Perhaps the entire device comes out with the penis? That would make sense...leaving a guy left trying to get that evil contraption off his equipment.

Brita
06-22-2010, 01:00 PM
Perhaps the entire device comes out with the penis? That would make sense...leaving a guy left trying to get that evil contraption off his equipment.

That's exactly what happens- and it can only be removed surgically, which is the final catch (pun intended)- he has to go to the hospital to get it off.

And it is indeed evil- there is no denying it. It is evil combating an evil. This sort of thing should never be needed, but the world is unfair, particularly to those who happen to be physically weaker.

Ivhon
06-22-2010, 01:01 PM
That's exactly what happens- and it can only be removed surgically, which is the final catch (pun intended)- he has to go to the hospital to get it off.

And it is indeed evil- there is no denying it. It is evil combating an evil. This sort of thing should never be needed, but the world is unfair, particularly to those who happen to be physically weaker.

Or mentally weaker...but that is a whole nother thread :D

Brita
06-22-2010, 01:06 PM
Or mentally weaker...but that is a whole nother thread :D

Oh no you didn't! :p

Ivhon
06-22-2010, 01:13 PM
Oh no you didn't! :p

No. I didn't. I was thinking of mentally challenged children - or adults, for that matter - getting in trouble because they get manipulated by smarter kids who get away scott free while the slower kid winds up holding the bag.

However, that is apples and oranges to this topic.

Brita
06-22-2010, 01:16 PM
No. I didn't. I was thinking of mentally challenged children - or adults, for that matter - getting in trouble because they get manipulated by smarter kids who get away scott free while the slower kid winds up holding the bag.

However, that is apples and oranges to this topic.

Did I just totally walk into a cleverly planned trap? I think I did...dammit!

Terez
06-22-2010, 01:16 PM
I posted about this a couple of years ago on Malazan (and maybe here too; I can't recall); there are a few South Africans over there but they didn't have much to say about it other than 'yeah rape is really bad here, especially in poor/ghetto areas'. Crime in general is bad, but I saw a survey once saying that something like 1 in 5 South African men say they have raped someone, or tried to.

Ivhon
06-22-2010, 01:20 PM
Did I just totally walk into a cleverly planned trap? I think I did...dammit!

LOL. NO. Stop being such a woman and reading more into my comments than what I am saying! :p:p:p:p:p

There. Oh, yes I did!

Crispin's Crispian
06-22-2010, 01:26 PM
Of course you teach children to respect all people. However, you can't pretend that differences don't exist. Even very very young children can tell the physiological differences between races and sexes (children begin differentiating race at 6-9 months old). Pretending that everyone is the same when clearly they are not sends a confusing and conflicting message - and allows them to develop prejudice on their own. Bias in children is as much self-constructed as taught. The best way to combat bias is to honestly acknowledge differences where they exist (establishes trust with your message being congruent to what the child observes), explain - regularly - that those differences don't mean better or worse, and most important let children witness you - as a trusted and admired person who is like them - having positive and respectful interactions with the outgroup.

I think you are misunderstanding me. Nowhere did I say that we should pretend everyone is the same. But the idea is to be respectful regardless of differences, not because of them. When someone says, "we should teach boys to respect women," I agree, but it's not just because they are women. I see that as indirectly chauvinist.


I posted about this a couple of years ago on Malazan (and maybe here too; I can't recall); there are a few South Africans over there but they didn't have much to say about it other than 'yeah rape is really bad here, especially in poor/ghetto areas'. Crime in general is bad, but I saw a survey once saying that something like 1 in 5 South African men say they have raped someone, or tried to.It's probably rather like anywhere--when we only hear about stuff on the news, even if it's nearby, it doesn't hold the same weight as when we experience it.

Ivhon
06-22-2010, 01:34 PM
I think you are misunderstanding me. Nowhere did I say that we should pretend everyone is the same. But the idea is to be respectful regardless of differences, not because of them. When someone says, "we should teach boys to respect women," I agree, but it's not just because they are women. I see that as indirectly chauvinist.


Ok...we are on the same page then. I was perhaps unclear earlier. I guess the difference is that I think that lots of boys (certainly was the case when/where I grew up) learn the lesson - from peers or parents - that women ARE inferior by nature. My intent is simply to counteract that cultural message. You are absolutely right though. You respect women not because they are women, but because you respect people and women are people (as are blacks, gays, atheists, Christians, liberals and conservatives).

Brita
06-22-2010, 02:24 PM
LOL. NO. Stop being such a woman and reading more into my comments than what I am saying!

Well, you stop being a such a man and...and....and...saying only 25 % of what you mean!

Hmmpff!

nameless
06-22-2010, 02:44 PM
I don't think it's that simple at all. Women can be predators too. Could you imagine meeting a girl at a bar (or if you wanna be un-PC about it, a bonfire) and going back to her place, and you're about to get laid, and BAM, your dick gets caught in the equivalent of a barbed wire fence, because some woman hates men so much that she'd do that on purpose?

What a load of crap. The behavior you're describing isn't "predatory," it's "insane." Your first reaction after hearing about an anti-rape product is "what if some crazy person uses it to castrate me?" Freud would have a field day.

And there are women out there who would do that...

Yeah? Name one.

Plenty of women are angry at men, resent men, feel bullied by men, etc., but contrary to urban legend these feelings usually don't lead them to go out having sex with strangers as part of their revenge plan. And if you did fall for something like that, odds are she would have found a way to get you without the barbed condom. Hell, if that happens to you count your lucky stars she took the trouble to wear one instead of just waiting till you fell asleep and cutting your dick off.

edit: as a man you are more likely by several orders of magnitude to be sexually assualted by another man than to be entrapped by a woman. They should start handing these things out in prisons.

Neilbert
06-22-2010, 03:00 PM
It's not feminism, Neilbert, it's called anger.

Which is a significant portion of feminism.

edit: as a man you are more likely by several orders of magnitude to be sexually assualted by another man than to be entrapped by a woman. They should start handing these things out in prisons.

Contrary to popular belief, while women probably do receive the majority of relationship violence, it is not by "orders of magnitude" or even close.

Ivhon
06-22-2010, 03:11 PM
Which is a significant portion of feminism.

As defined by....?

Do women not have a right to be angry?
I'm pretty sure you are not this way, but you are coming off as one of those men who dismiss anything a woman might say because it is "feminist."
We need feminists. Otherwise, women go back to the millenia-old position of serving men. Women do not have political or economic equality (yet). More importantly, they lack autonomy over their bodies - which is something that men take for granted. A big - perhaps the biggest - component of autonomy over their bodies is NOT feeling completely impotent in resisting bigger stronger men when those men TAKE women's bodies.

So while I disagree with man-hate completely, feminism is something I am down with.

Contrary to popular belief, while women probably do receive the majority of relationship violence, it is not by "orders of magnitude" or even close.

Here you have a point.

Brita
06-22-2010, 03:23 PM
Which is a significant portion of feminism.


Surprise, surprise! No shit sherlock. I, however, am not the brand of feminist that you are labelling me as. I would never even call myself a "feminist", actually.

I do, however, get angry when rape is brought up. Really angry. And I can't help it. It is a gutteral reaction. It makes my stomach clench into a ball, and the heat of adrenaline course through my veins just to think of it. About 30 minutes later I feel nauseaous and shake, just a little, just my hands. Tonight I will probably dream about it vividly, and tomorrow I will hopefully be over it, until the next time it surfaces. And no, I have never been raped. I'm just lucky to be a girl. If you feel the need to discard my anger at the injustice of unbalanced gender abuse by labelling me nice and conveniently, then knock yourself out. If, however, you would ever like to actually get to know me, then drop the knee-jerk, jackass reactions and we can talk.

Or is this language too strong for a girl, and just proves your point that I must be a nazi-feminist.

Davian93
06-22-2010, 03:30 PM
Well, you stop being a such a man and...and....and...saying only 25 % of what you mean!

Hmmpff!

~senses braid tugging through Bond...possibly Sniffing as well~

JSUCamel
06-22-2010, 03:53 PM
Here you have a point.

Totally off topic, but I wanted to point out that you can split up quotes by using the [ QUOTE ] block, instead of having to go inside and bold stuff. I don't know about anyone else, but sometimes it's confusing to me, even with the bolded text, and I think "Wtf, neilbert didn't say anything close to that rational in that last pos--oh.. that was Ivhon...".

So you could do like

[ QUOTE=Neilbert ] This is part 1 of [/QUOTE]
[ QUOTE=Neilbert ] of the quote [/QUOTE]

Just sayin.. *ahem*. Back to your squabbling. *waves vaguely in that direction*

JSUCamel
06-22-2010, 04:01 PM
What a load of crap. The behavior you're describing isn't "predatory," it's "insane." Your first reaction after hearing about an anti-rape product is "what if some crazy person uses it to castrate me?" Freud would have a field day.

Wasn't my first reaction, I just don't think it's as simple as Ivhon said.

Yeah? Name one.

Lorena Bobbit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_and_Lorena_Bobbitt), for one. I can't name any others personally, because I'm fortunate enough to have not been assaulted, raped or otherwise molested by a woman -- but it does happen. The "No means no" rule applies to men, too, but you don't hear about it that often, because men are supposed to be "man" enough to take care of themselves.

Plenty of women are angry at men, resent men, feel bullied by men, etc., but contrary to urban legend these feelings usually don't lead them to go out having sex with strangers as part of their revenge plan.

Do you have a source for this, or are you just pulling this out of your ass?

And if you did fall for something like that, odds are she would have found a way to get you without the barbed condom. Hell, if that happens to you count your lucky stars she took the trouble to wear one instead of just waiting till you fell asleep and cutting your dick off.

I fail to see what this has to do with anything. Where did you find these "odds"? Is there a betting book on this?

edit: as a man you are more likely by several orders of magnitude to be sexually assualted by another man than to be entrapped by a woman. They should start handing these things out in prisons.

You're right, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. As a matter of fact, it happens quite frequently. 1 in 6 women are sexually assaulted, and 1 in 33 MEN are sexually assaulted (source: http://www.rainn.org/statistics). In addition, somewhere around 60% of assaults aren't reported. To sit there and say I'm stupid for suggesting that women might use this as a weapon is insulting and flat out wrong. It could and it will happen (if it hasn't happened yet), mark my words.

Brita
06-22-2010, 04:09 PM
You're right, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. As a matter of fact, it happens quite frequently. 1 in 6 women are sexually assaulted, and 1 in 33 MEN are sexually assaulted.

I am fairly certain the 1 in 33 men weren't raped by women, but by other men, which is exactly what nameless is saying. I imagine the statistics on men being abused by women is extremely low (but it is also probably VERY under reported).

I agree using the Rape-Axe as a weapon may happen sometime, somewhere. On the other hand, a woman is being raped right now- guaranteed.

EDIT- and Lorena Bobbit was the worst thing to ever happen to women, because now men can just point to her (one woman) to downplay what has been done to us since the dawn of humanity.

Crispin's Crispian
06-22-2010, 04:20 PM
Ok...we are on the same page then. I was perhaps unclear earlier. I guess the difference is that I think that lots of boys (certainly was the case when/where I grew up) learn the lesson - from peers or parents - that women ARE inferior by nature. My intent is simply to counteract that cultural message. You are absolutely right though. You respect women not because they are women, but because you respect people and women are people (as are blacks, gays, atheists, Christians, liberals and conservatives).

Yes, I think we are on the same page. I figured as much, but it's not like me to not nitpick an argument. ;)

Ivhon
06-22-2010, 04:31 PM
I am fairly certain the 1 in 33 men weren't raped by women, but by other men, which is exactly what nameless is saying. I imagine the statistics on men being abused by women is extremely low (but it is also probably VERY under reported).

Statistically, women throw the first blow in domestic fights - men typically throw the last :-\ You are right that male abuse by women is more under-reported than the other way around. Furthermore, men are rarely taken seriously even when they do report it (Po-Po just tell them to go home).

I agree using the Rape-Axe as a weapon may happen sometime, somewhere. On the other hand, a woman is being raped right now- guaranteed.

This.

EDIT- and Lorena Bobbit was the worst thing to ever happen to women, because now men can just point to her (one woman) to downplay what has been done to us since the dawn of humanity.

And this.

Happy Camel?

Davian93
06-22-2010, 04:33 PM
I can honestly say that as a white male aged 18-54, nobody has it as rough as me. Its a tough world for my demographic.

Ivhon
06-22-2010, 04:41 PM
I can honestly say that as a straight white middle-class male aged 18-54, nobody has it as rough as me. Its a tough world for my demographic.

Fixed. Least you have health issues. I don't even have that. Pity meh.

Sei'taer
06-22-2010, 04:47 PM
I can honestly say that as a white male aged 18-54, nobody has it as rough as me. Its a tough world for my demographic.

You got that shit right.

Male Sexual Abuse Victims
of Female Perpetrators:
Society's Betrayal of Boys
by Kali Munro, M.Ed., Psychotherapist, 2002.





The reality that boys are sexually abused by women is not widely accepted. Some people view it as an impossible act - that a male can’t be sexually assaulted by a female - and others view it as sexually titillating. The existence of female perpetrators and male victims confronts many of our most firmly held beliefs about women, men, sexuality, power, and sexual assault. It challenges our very notions about what sex is.


The view that males always want and benefit from sex with females

On the whole, discussions and writings about sex refer exclusively to heterosexuality, which is considered normal and natural. The commonly held view of heterosexuality is that men are always wanting and seeking sex with females; males are dominant, while females are submissive. Men initiate sexual encounters, and women accept or decline male invitations for sex.


If a female initiates sex with a boy he is considered lucky

If a female initiates sexual contact with a male, this is viewed as a rare and exciting opportunity that no man should let pass by; he should be grateful.

Given these commonly held beliefs, many people see nothing wrong with a woman pursuing a boy sexually. In fact, in some circles it is considered a good way to introduce boys to heterosexuality. Some fathers take their young sons to prostitutes with the mistaken belief that it is “good” for them. A number of movies, stories, jokes, and fantasies portray older women sexually “seducing” young boys in positive terms.


Where does this leave men who were sexually abused by women?

Sadly, many men who were sexually abused by women are locked in silence, shame, and self-loathing. Society tells them that not only was their experience not abuse, but that they should have enjoyed it, and if they didn’t there must be something terribly wrong with them.

Even when their experiences are recognized as abuse, they may be viewed as having been “weak” or “not man enough” because they were unable to stop it, defend themselves, or put it behind them.

The myth that men can’t be victimized particularly by women is firmly entrenched in many cultures. Many men who dare acknowledge that they were sexually abused by women are cruelly laughed at and humiliated. Most do not dare say a word about it for fear of feeling any more ashamed than they already feel.

Many men who were sexually abused by women feel deeply ashamed of themselves, their sexuality, and their gender. Sadly and mistakenly, they believe that there must be something profoundly wrong with them that they were abused in this way. Some men defend against feeling this way by being in a constant state of anger or rage - one of the few emotions that are socially acceptable for men. Many male survivors cope with the abuse by drinking, using drugs, living recklessly, avoiding intimate relationships, numbing their feelings, dissociating, and becoming depressed, anxious or angry.

David Lisak, Ph.D. (1994), in his research with 26 adult male sexual abuse survivors, found that the effects of the abuse on the men could be grouped according to the following themes:

Anger

Betrayal

Fear

Helplessness

Homosexuality Issues (mostly for men abused by men)

Isolation and Alienation

Legitimacy (being able to take the abuse and its effects seriously)

Loss

Masculinity Issues (feeling okay about being male)

Negative Childhood Peer Relations

Negative Schemas about People (difficulty trusting others)

Negative Schemas about the Self (feeling bad about one's self)

Problems with Sexuality

Self Blame/Guilt

Shame/Humiliation
For a more detailed description of these themes and to read some moving quotes from the interviews with the men, you can read this article in pdf format here. (http://www.jimhopper.com/pdfs/Lisak_(1994)_Male_Survivor_Interviews.pdf)



Mother-son sexual abuse



Men who were sexually abused by their mothers, or other women in parenting roles (such as aunts, grandmothers, sisters, etc.) often feel the most inner turmoil, shame, guilt, and self-loathing. They were betrayed by the very women who were supposed to take care of them and to protect them. It is no wonder that men who were sexually abused by their mothers feel a profound sadness and emptiness.

Abuse by a mother is often the last abuse to be dealt with when there have been other perpetrators in the survivor’s history. Many men and women have said that the abuse by their mothers was the most shameful and damaging form of childhood victimization that they experienced. (Elliott, 1993, pg. 21)

Men who were sexually abused by their mothers often have a very difficult time disclosing the abuse because they feel a loyalty - a traumatic bond - with their mothers. It may be a conflicted bond, but a bond still the same. This bond may stop them from disclosing what they believe would be a “betrayal” of their mother’s trust and confidence.



The son may be put in the role of husband



In my clinical experience, a common dynamic in mother-son sexual abuse is that of the son being placed in the role of husband. In this context, a son is likely to feel aligned with his mother and protective of her, wanting to please her and take care of her. He may even be put in the position of trying to protect her from her abusive husband, which will invariably leave him feeling inadequate and ineffectual. As a child, his mother’s abuse may seem less threatening than his father’s, but her abuse is no less serious just the same. In time, the effects of her abuse will take its toll on him.

With this reversal in roles, abused boys sometimes grow up having problems being taken care of, preferring to place themselves in care-taking positions. They may become very submissive, catering to the needs of their sexual partners. On the other hand, they may be very angry at women, viewing all women in the same way - as being emotionally manipulative, controlling, abusive and untrustworthy - and take revenge on them.



Female perpetrators can be just as violent as men



It is common for mothers who sexually abuse their sons to rely on emotional manipulation and control, for example, by telling the child that by doing a certain act it will make mommy or aunty “feel good”; pretending that the abuse is really a form of bathing and cleaning; pretending that it is meant to make the child “feel good”; pretending that it is cuddling. It is also the case that mothers and female perpetrators are violent. This is particularly evident in ritual abuse where women, along with men, are sadistic toward children (and adults).

Female perpetrators can be just as violent as men. We know this, yet the stereotype and reality of the “emotionally clingy” female perpetrator is given more attention because it confirms our beliefs that women are weak, emotionally dependent, and non-violent. I have heard horrendous stories from men (and women) who were beaten and tortured by their mothers and other women in their lives, and not only in the context of ritual abuse.



Final thoughts



Men who were sexually abused by women rarely see their reality reflected in articles, books, services, and web sites that are created for sexual abuse survivors. The fact that it is not widely acknowledged or accepted that boys as well as girls are sexually abused, and women as well as men sexually abuse children is damaging to men who were abused by women.

Many male survivors live in isolation, fear, shame, anger, and silence precisely because they know the taboos in our culture about talking about this form of abuse. It needn’t be this way. We can acknowledge that boys are abused and women abuse children without diminishing the reality of male perpetrated violence and female victimization. Understanding this form of abuse contributes to our knowledge about abuse in all its forms - something that we will all benefit from.

© Kali Munro, 2002.

Ivhon
06-22-2010, 04:54 PM
I agree with that paper 100%.

One advantage that women DO have over men is that there is a far more comprehensive support network for women at all stages of development than there is for men.

Much of this is societally driven - women are allowed to ask for and receive help. Men are expected to do it alone.

Crispin's Crispian
06-22-2010, 05:54 PM
I agree with that paper 100%.

One advantage that women DO have over men is that there is a far more comprehensive support network for women at all stages of development than there is for men.

Much of this is societally driven - women are allowed to ask for and receive help. Men are expected to do it alone.
I think that's part of it. I also think that if sexual abuse of men by female perpetrators was more common and more reported, there would be a stronger support system in place. Typically when men as a group don't like something, they use their considerable social and economic power to change it.

Brita
06-22-2010, 06:00 PM
Good article Sei! Although it is far less frequent (it really is) it is extremely damaging on so many levels because of the lack of recognition and the significant stigma.

Ivhon
06-22-2010, 06:20 PM
I think that's part of it. I also think that if sexual abuse of men by female perpetrators was more common and more reported, there would be a stronger support system in place. Typically when men as a group don't like something, they use their considerable social and economic power to change it.

Violence and abuse is just one part of it though. It also extends to school and social supports, counseling and whatnot. For example, there are any number of scholastic resources available for girls where they can learn what challenges face them as women and how they can address them. For boys? Well... they might have a good daddy. Or they have their equally clueless peers - who likely exacerbate the problems with the bravado of youth. You and I both know that 85% of our male friends had gotten laid before the age of 10 to listen to them. That kind of thing just ADDS to the pressures facing boys...does not subtract.

Brita
06-22-2010, 06:46 PM
When our son was born, we got a great book called "Real Boys". It was the male answer to the groundbreaking book "Drowning Ophelia". It has been an amazing resource for us as parents of a boy and I highly recommend it. The truth is, there is not much geared towards boys "emotional" issues, 'cause they don't have any, right? Boys are just boys, right? It really is too bad, but this book is an excellent resource, like I said.

nameless
06-22-2010, 07:13 PM
Lorena Bobbit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_and_Lorena_Bobbitt), for one. I can't name any others personally, because I'm fortunate enough to have not been assaulted, raped or otherwise molested by a woman -- but it does happen. The "No means no" rule applies to men, too, but you don't hear about it that often, because men are supposed to be "man" enough to take care of themselves.

Lorena Bobbit mutilated her husband after years of domestic abuse. Hardly an analagous situation to a woman assaulting a man she's never met before after spending the whole evening leading him to believe she was interested in him and even going so far as to have sex in order to maintain the charade.


Do you have a source for this, or are you just pulling this out of your ass? ...I fail to see what this has to do with anything. Where did you find these "odds"? Is there a betting book on this?
Yes and no. I'm assuming that some sort of mental illness would be a prerequisite for doing something so completely psychotic and taking that as a starting point. 1-2% of the population has violent psychopathic tendencies, but they're not all violent psychopaths. It just means they have the capacity to commit acts of extreme violence without any sort of remorse. From here I did start to pull things out of my ass, as follows: 1/50 women have the capacity to justify violent and indiscriminate revenge against the male sex to themselves, multiplied by the 1/6 of those women who've been sexually assaulted and therefore have motive, which brings us to 1/300 (already 10 times less likely than male/male sexual assault). Common sense tells us that a majority of these 1/300 cases will use good old fashioned violence, poison, or other methods that do not involve having sex with their victims because a majority of people do not have sex with people they hate.



You're right, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. As a matter of fact, it happens quite frequently. 1 in 6 women are sexually assaulted, and 1 in 33 MEN are sexually assaulted (source: http://www.rainn.org/statistics). In addition, somewhere around 60% of assaults aren't reported.
I suspect male victims are much less likely to report being sexually assaulted than female victims. The 1/33 number is way too low. And, as has been stated by other posters, the vast majority of those men were assaulted by men. Sexual assaults committed by women do happen but they're rare, though if anything even more under-reported than those committed by men.

To sit there and say I'm stupid for suggesting that women might use this as a weapon is insulting and flat out wrong. It could and it will happen (if it hasn't happened yet), mark my words.

My issue with your scenario was the idea that some random woman in a bar would pick up complete strangers for the sole purpose of using her vagina to mutilate their penises. That's something straight out of one of those urban legends that teaches men to associate promiscuity in women with deviant predatory behavior. Many of those urban legends also serve to justify misogyny by presuming the existence of a violent misandry lurking beneath the female exterior, making them particularly objectionable - and in fact, more than one poster has perpetuated that myth on this thread with the facile argument that feminism = rage against men, though to your credit you're not one of them.

edit: Contrary to popular belief, while women probably do receive the majority of relationship violence, it is not by "orders of magnitude" or even close.
This is true, but I was talking about sexual assault, not domestic violence. My impression was that domestic violence is more along the lines of a 60/40 breakdown, though I'd have to look it up to be sure.

Crispin's Crispian
06-22-2010, 07:33 PM
Violence and abuse is just one part of it though. It also extends to school and social supports, counseling and whatnot. For example, there are any number of scholastic resources available for girls where they can learn what challenges face them as women and how they can address them. For boys? Well... they might have a good daddy. Or they have their equally clueless peers - who likely exacerbate the problems with the bravado of youth. You and I both know that 85% of our male friends had gotten laid before the age of 10 to listen to them. That kind of thing just ADDS to the pressures facing boys...does not subtract.
Argh...you're driving me nuts, Ivhon. I can't tell if you're disagreeing or just making another point.

I completely 100% agree about the emotional issues and lack of support, in addition to the bravado factor. I think both the real infrequency and the emotional pressures on boys contribute to a lack of social support systems for the victims.

Brita--we have that book, too. I think I didn't read it all, though, so I probably should. My son is going to be seven next month, and even though we try to nurture appropriate emotions, I'm already seeing him closing up to us. The socialized part of me thinks, "well, it's inevitable--he's a boy." But the rest of me dreads it.

nameless
06-22-2010, 07:36 PM
Raising Cain is another good one for that:
http://www.amazon.com/Raising-Cain-Protecting-Emotional-Life/dp/0345434854/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277249768&sr=8-1

Sei'taer
06-22-2010, 07:51 PM
Argh...you're driving me nuts, Ivhon. I can't tell if you're disagreeing or just making another point.

I completely 100% agree about the emotional issues and lack of support, in addition to the bravado factor. I think both the real infrequency and the emotional pressures on boys contribute to a lack of social support systems for the victims.

Brita--we have that book, too. I think I didn't read it all, though, so I probably should. My son is going to be seven next month, and even though we try to nurture appropriate emotions, I'm already seeing him closing up to us. The socialized part of me thinks, "well, it's inevitable--he's a boy." But the rest of me dreads it.

Just wait, it gets worse. My 19 yr old daughter will come and cry on my shoulder. My 13 yr old son will get in a fight at school and tell me nothing happened at school today. It's weird because other than teaching them manners and the small differences between what a boy does and what a girl does, I treated them the same way growing up. My daughter plays all kinds of sports and is a rough and tumble tomboy type because I didn't know anything about girls when she was born so I taught her like a boy, sports, fishing, guy type things. Same with my son...dunno where the disconnect happened.

Davian93
06-22-2010, 08:22 PM
Boys and girls are different. I doubt you did anything wrong.


We, as a society, need to realize that boys and girls are different different different and we can't treat them the same as a result. Equal, yes, the same, no.

nameless
06-22-2010, 08:32 PM
Or maybe just realize that treating them the same won't produce the same results. Plus, unless you're raising your kids in a hermetically sealed room they're being influenced by their peer groups just as much as by your upbringing. It's rough on parents but there isn't much you can do about it apart from staying involved and making sure his friends aren't complete a**holes. And it's natural for teenage boys to turn into reticent, surly, self-absorbed narcissists for a few years before growing up enough to pull their heads out of their butts. Just have faith that when he does grow up he'll remember the values you taught him.

JSUCamel
06-22-2010, 08:39 PM
Happy Camel?

Much better, thanks.

As far as Lorena Bobbit, nameless asked for an example of when a woman has deliberately attacked a man's penis for revenge/anger. I didn't throw her name in to downplay rape against women, but rather to highlight the fact that men can be victims of sexual assault by women. It happens, and it happens more often than the media reports it.


Lorena Bobbit mutilated her husband after years of domestic abuse. Hardly an analagous situation to a woman assaulting a man she's never met before after spending the whole evening leading him to believe she was interested in him and even going so far as to have sex in order to maintain the charade.

OK, then let's ignore the stranger part. I still maintain that it could happen, but since you're so naive about how the world works and how psychopathy works, then we'll just ignore it. Besides, there's no reason a girl I've been dating for ages decides after an argument one night that she could put that on and "show me who's boss".

Common sense tells us that a majority of these 1/300 cases will use good old fashioned violence, poison, or other methods that do not involve having sex with their victims because a majority of people do not have sex with people they hate.

I'm no psychiatrist, but as far as I understand, psychopaths don't have to have a reason for why they do what they do. I can guarantee you that many women have, at some point, used sex to lure their victims into complacency, even when they hate them. Do the majority of people do that? No, of course not. But enough do that my point still stands.

I suspect male victims are much less likely to report being sexually assaulted than female victims. The 1/33 number is way too low. And, as has been stated by other posters, the vast majority of those men were assaulted by men. Sexual assaults committed by women do happen but they're rare, though if anything even more under-reported than those committed by men.

Yes, it's under-reported. I don't understand why a man would rape a woman, and I'm equally perplexed as to why a woman would rape a man -- but it is possible and it happens. You can sit here and say "Well, men are more likely to rape men than women are" but that doesn't negate my point at all. This device we're talking about could potentially be used as a weapon against men (bad) as opposed to a defensive/deterrent tool for women (good).

. That's something straight out of one of those urban legends that teaches men to associate promiscuity in women with deviant predatory behavior. Many of those urban legends also serve to justify misogyny by presuming the existence of a violent misandry lurking beneath the female exterior, making them particularly objectionable - and in fact, more than one poster has perpetuated that myth on this thread with the facile argument that feminism = rage against men, though to your credit you're not one of them.

Let's get something straight. I'm not talking about urban legends. I'm talking (http://blogs.app.com/saywhat/2009/06/19/woman-on-trial-for-raping-10-men/) about articles (http://www.10news.com/news/14173622/detail.html) I've read (http://www.zimdiaspora.com/index.php?Itemid=18&catid=38:travel-tips&id=2243:sex-starved-women-rape-a-man-in-church&option=com_content&view=article)and statistics I've seen that indicate that women can and do use sex to exact revenge, express anger, and sometimes initiate violence for their own agenda. I'm not promoting a promiscuity = deviant behavior stereotype (in fact, I want a girl that's crazy in bed). No, I'm not promoting that stereotype at all -- I'm talking about facts that you're willing to ignore simply because the majority of rapes are men raping women. If 99% of people have normal vision, that doesn't mean the 1% that are color-blind aren't important or relevant.

I'm not belittling rape against women, and I'm certainly not saying that women are bad guys and men are innocent. Men rape women all the time -- another statistical fact. But what I have a problem with is this idea that women have to some how strike back against men in general, when the majority of us haven't done anything wrong. I would greatly prefer a tool or device that could prevent rape and not be used as a weapon. However, I can't think of a possible solution at the moment, so I'll just express my regret that such a device may be deemed necessary by the general public.

Sinistrum
06-22-2010, 09:26 PM
This thing is awesome. Could it be considered cruel? Sure. But its not even a tenth of the cruelty involved in a rape and people who engage in such behavior deserve to get a little cruelty back. Can it be abused by crazy women? Sure. But that doesn't make it any different than any other tool of self-defense. The object itself is not inherently good, bad, or prone to abusive uses. Its all in how the individual person uses it.

Davian93
06-22-2010, 09:43 PM
If a female initiates sexual contact with a male, this is viewed as a rare and exciting opportunity that no man should let pass by; he should be grateful

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/lgoXUzIwXk0/0.jpg

nameless
06-22-2010, 09:45 PM
OK, then let's ignore the stranger part. I still maintain that it could happen, but since you're so naive about how the world works and how psychopathy works, then we'll just ignore it. Besides, there's no reason a girl I've been dating for ages decides after an argument one night that she could put that on and "show me who's boss".
Having sex with someone pretty much puts you completely at their mercy. It's an incredible act of trust. If someone you're sleeping with decides to "show you who's boss" she doesn't need one of these devices to harm you. There are dozens of ways she could do that using commonly available household materials. Lorena managed it with a kitchen knife, for example. Does this add to the arsenal of potential ways for a psychopath to hurt you? Sure. Is it any more dangerous than the other weapons already at her disposal? Not at all; in fact, it is far less dangerous than most. It just seems especially creepy because it involves her genitals harming your genitals and everyone has deep-seated programming that makes them uncomfortable about the idea of harm specifically targetting their boy and girl parts. That very specificity may make Rape-aXe a particularly attractive weapon to someone whose psychopathology causes them to be preoccupied with reproductive parts, but as I've said earlier, if you sleep with a psychopath who wants to hurt you then you're already up the creek no matter what weapon she's chosen. The difference between Rape-aXe and the kitchen knife is that the kitchen knife is capable of hurting you whether or not you have sex with her. Yes, it's a crying shame that we live in a world where anyone would need an anti-rape device, just like it's a shame we live in a world where people need pepper spray and stun guns and other less-than-lethal weapons. At least the potential for misuse with this one is severely limited. As other posters have pointed out, nobody who bothers with foreplay - a staple of consensual sex - would be caught by surprise by one of these things.

But what I have a problem with is this idea that women have to some how strike back against men in general, when the majority of us haven't done anything wrong.
Rape-aXe isn't about striking back against men in general. It's about striking back against the one particular man who's having sex with you without your consent (or in the case of the rare psychopath the man who's having sex with you with your consent but without foreplay, which is kind of horrible, but she's a psycho, she'd find some other way to hurt him if this device weren't available)
I would greatly prefer a tool or device that could prevent rape and not be used as a weapon.
There's no such thing as a tool that can't be used as a weapon. A WoT fan should know that.

JSUCamel
06-22-2010, 09:50 PM
The difference between Rape-aXe and the kitchen knife is that the kitchen knife is capable of hurting you whether or not you have sex with her.

(snip)

There's no such thing as a tool that can't be used as a weapon.

No, the difference between a Rape-aXe and a knife is that a knife can have other utilitarian purposes, such as chopping food, slicing cheese, and self defence. A Rape-aXe is designed purely to hurt someone else.

nameless
06-22-2010, 09:57 PM
You listed "self-defense" and "hurt someone else" as if they were two different things. Care to elaborate?

JSUCamel
06-22-2010, 10:12 PM
You listed "self-defense" and "hurt someone else" as if they were two different things. Care to elaborate?

Sure. Self-defense is designed to protect yourself. Self-defense may or may not include inflicting pain on another. Hurt someone else is... well... inflicting pain on another.

A knife's purpose is many and varied, some of which may be benign and useful, some of which may include hurting someone else -- it depends on the person and how they use it.

It doesn't matter who uses a Rape-aXe or what their intentions are -- its sole purpose is to shred a man's penis.

Frenzy
06-22-2010, 11:18 PM
It doesn't matter who uses a Rape-aXe or what their intentions are -- its sole purpose is to shred a man's penis.
a man's penis that's being forcefully inserted into an unwanted place.

it's like living in Oakland and wearing a bullet-proof vest that shoots back.

JSUCamel
06-22-2010, 11:42 PM
a man's penis that's being forcefully inserted into an unwanted place.

it's like living in Oakland and wearing a bullet-proof vest that shoots back.

Just as nameless mentioned that there are many ways to assault someone, there are also many ways to defend oneself that doesn't resort to shredding a penis.

Firseal
06-22-2010, 11:58 PM
I know that, yes, you all think this is a good thing. As a preventative deterent against being raped, which in certain areas is a not an unreasonable fear.

But this is still a weapon. A defensive weapon, sure. But anything that is described as needing surgical aid to remove from the penis after it sinks in barbs and causing excruciating pain? Claim it isn't a weapon and you are immediately ignoring that this can be abused just as easily as it can be used as a deterent.

There are lots of dumb reasons people have sex (not rape, sex). Put these on the open market, advertise them? I swear to god it will be a short time until someone wears one, and then intentionally initiates sex with a male (doesn't even need to be a woman - a vindictive male of a certain bent could probably find a way to put one to use as well) and then sends them to a hospital. Someone above suggested this is unlikely, as apparently we are now back to living in the 1920s and women (or gay men) only have sex for noble or pure reasons. From where I live in the real world, I am facepalming.

I'm not pro-rape (as the last guy who noted this was a terrible product has been accused of being.). I'm anti-really dumb ideas. This? Really dumb idea.

That being said, I am all but certain it will catch on quick, be almost never used properly, and lead to some of the most interesting court battles you ever did see.

My god, the stupidity...

Sinistrum
06-23-2010, 12:11 AM
Just as nameless mentioned that there are many ways to assault someone, there are also many ways to defend oneself that doesn't resort to shredding a penis.

Yeah and apparently most of those aren't working in South Africa. Hence the high rape stats.

It doesn't matter who uses a Rape-aXe or what their intentions are -- its sole purpose is to shred a man's penis.

Yeah, so what?

Self-defense may or may not include inflicting pain on another.

I'd like to see an example of self-defense from a violent attack that didn't involve violence or the infliction of pain. All of the ones I've come up with involve varying degrees of pain but perhaps you can provide one for us.

But this is still a weapon. A defensive weapon, sure. But anything that is described as needing surgical aid to remove from the penis after it sinks in barbs and causing excruciating pain, and you are immediately ignoring that this can be abused just as easily as it can be used as a deterent.

So can cars, guns, fertilizer, everyday household cleaners, alcohol, cell phones, and just about everything ever made, found, or sold (most of them to more damaging effect when they are abused, mind you). Your point?

As other posters have pointed out, nobody who bothers with foreplay - a staple of consensual sex - would be caught by surprise by one of these things.

This.

There's no such thing as a tool that can't be used as a weapon. A WoT fan should know that.

And sweet mother of god this. I can't believe I just agreed with nameless. Twice no less.

Firseal
06-23-2010, 12:30 AM
Quote: There's no such thing as a tool that can't be used as a weapon. A WoT fan should know that.

There are, however, weapons which cannot be used as tools. This thing has no purpose but to maim. You applaud it because you percieve it only being used on victims you want to see maimed anyway.

I'm not naive enough to believe that this thing will only be used by saints in war torn countries.

Oh, and as for your metaphor, Frenzy? A bulletproof vest that shoots back in Oakland? Great in theory. In practice, unless it has perfect aim (and, being a vest [or dentata], I doubt it) you are more likely to hit a bystander than the loons with the guns. On the other hand, that makes your point nearly viable.

Sinistrum
06-23-2010, 01:22 AM
This thing has no purpose but to maim.

And? I hear the same argument used over gun control. I'm just as confused as to why it matters here as I am for why it matters with guns. So what if its only purpose is to maim?

You applaud it because you percieve it only being used on victims you want to see maimed anyway.

Nope. If you read my posts, I fully admit that abuses of it will occur. I just don't see them as a problem that is absent most other forms of technology we use. The risk of those abuses is completely acceptable in light of the deterrent and punative effect the product's intended use will have. Those risks are certainly less than the results of car or fertilizer abuse that ends in harm to others.

Firseal
06-23-2010, 02:27 AM
Is that what you'll say when the case is before you of someone using one maliciously? That this product is no more dangerous than a car or fertilizer, and should be treated as such?

Bet the guy at the other table will have a field day.

Which, after all, have other uses than to maim. A car one has to be taught to use before it is anything but an oddly shaped metal tent, and it takes an understanding of chemistry, a library, the internet, or all three to make fertilizer a threat. This one you stick something into.

Heck, how about a use of this dentata where it isn't a passive or active weapon? I mean, hell, if you don't mind shooting yourself you can use a gun as a nutcracker, but I can see no harmless application of this and I do not think as a deterent it offers anything near the positive application to balance out the potentially horrific abuses this thing offers.

nameless
06-23-2010, 04:10 AM
The weapon's purpose is actually twofold: it causes pain to the attacker and it creates a situation in which the attacker is forced to go to a hospital that will create a public record of the fact that he triggered an anti-rape device. Given the abysmally low conviction rate of sexual assault cases, the paper trail is probably more valuable than the pain. Of course it's no replacement for a rape kit but used in tandem with one it could be a powerful tool for law enforcement.

The wikipedia article does not specify what material the barbs are made out of and what kind of damage they would cause. Let's assume the worst and say that the wounds it causes are grievous. What then? Every weapon is capable of causing grievous wounds. Stun guns can trigger heart attacks. Pepper spray can trigger anaphylactic shock. The "phaser set for stun" that incapacitates an aggresor without ever causing any long-term harm exists only in science fiction. While it is possible to use "Rape-aXe" offensively, doing so would require much more effort than any other weapon on the market. Do you honestly believe conventional weapons would be harder to abuse, or have less horrific consequences when abused? Your "pistol as nutcracker" argument is sophistry. Handguns are designed specifically to kill people and simple enough to operate that small children periodically manage to shoot someone with their parents' gun. Are they really less objectionable than a weapon designed to interrupt an attack without lethal consequences just because they don't automatically target the groin? Would Rape-aXe suddenly become less objectionable if some enterprising tinkerer used it to catch garden snakes?

Terez
06-23-2010, 04:46 AM
I kinda have to agree with Firseal on this one. The idea is just dumb. I mean, what kind of girl is going to go around with one of these things in at all times in case of rape? Really?

Ivhon
06-23-2010, 05:17 AM
I kinda have to agree with Firseal on this one. The idea is just dumb. I mean, what kind of girl is going to go around with one of these things in at all times in case of rape? Really?

I dunno. Perspective might be different in S. Africa, where it seems from the statistics reported on this thread that any given woman faces the probability of being raped - probably multiple times. As bad as the rape stats are in the US, I can't imagine the paranoia there.

Terez
06-23-2010, 07:18 AM
I dunno. Perspective might be different in S. Africa, where it seems from the statistics reported on this thread that any given woman faces the probability of being raped - probably multiple times. As bad as the rape stats are in the US, I can't imagine the paranoia there.
The probability is still probably pretty low for any given woman. And another thing that makes it idiotic is that rapists who are aware of the existence of this thing will check for it.

Ivhon
06-23-2010, 07:40 AM
The probability is still probably pretty low for any given woman. And another thing that makes it idiotic is that rapists who are aware of the existence of this thing will check for it.

The second bit continues to be the hanging point for me. As for the rape stats, hard to say but if 1/6 men admit to having raped or attempted to rape a woman then I would imagine that the chances of any given woman being raped would be extremely high - like in the 80% range (wild, semi-educated guess based on 25% of US women reporting rape/date rape...assuming a higher percentage than that from unreported rapes...and assuming hugely higher in S. Africa because nothing LIKE 1/6 men here would admit to having raped or attempted to rape a woman [different cultures, I know...hence the wildness {could I embed more parentheticals? |yes|}])

Neilbert
06-23-2010, 08:14 AM
Here you have a point.

LOL.

The only issues I have with feminism are the name, and the idea which exists among some that claim the label that "it's men's turn for a change". Asking by who's definition is a bit of playing the no-true-scotsman game, especially considering the label functions to attract that kind of thought.

As to whether women have the right to be angry, or control over their own bodies, or the right to violently defend themselves against rape.... :rolleyes: obviously I am strongly against these things.

Gilshalos Sedai
06-23-2010, 09:26 AM
LOL.

The only issues I have with feminism are the name, and the idea which exists among some that claim the label that "it's men's turn for a change". Asking by who's definition is a bit of playing the no-true-scotsman game, especially considering the label functions to attract that kind of thought.

As to whether women have the right to be angry, or control over their own bodies, or the right to violently defend themselves against rape.... :rolleyes: obviously I am strongly against these things.


Those women aren't feminists. They can call themselves that all they want, but either they aren't or I am not.

And a humanist is something else so I can't be called that.

Frankly, I think this thing is barbaric. But so's a gun. And I'm working on getting a license for that.

Davian93
06-23-2010, 09:30 AM
Those women aren't feminists. They can call themselves that all they want, but either they aren't or I am not.

And a humanist is something else so I can't be called that.

Frankly, I think this thing is barbaric. But so's a gun. And I'm working on getting a license for that.

License for a gun? You really need one in Texas? I mean, I dont need a license to carry concealed in VT and we're the most liberal wackadoo place on earth. I guess you big-government, regulation oriented Texans need to take a lesson from us independent, freedom oriented Vermonters.

Matoyak
06-23-2010, 09:35 AM
Erm...side-question: would it not be quite easy to turn this thing inside out and a potential rapist use it on a woman?

I mean... I'm not pro-rape (Sad that I feel I have to say that) (I'm actually along with Davian in having a knee-jerk reaction of "just castrate the bastards") But I think Firseal's got a point in thinking that this thing has some downsides...

Also...I have a suspicion that it could all too easily harm the woman using it... I mean, metal barbs is not something I would suggest putting INSIDE you.

But 'ey, not my call to make.

Sei'taer
06-23-2010, 09:37 AM
License for a gun? You really need one in Texas? I mean, I dont need a license to carry concealed in VT and we're the most liberal wackadoo place on earth. I guess you big-government, regulation oriented Texans need to take a lesson from us independent, freedom oriented Vermonters.

Apparently you Alaska and Arizona are the only unrestricted states. In Tennessee you can carry in the open with no restrictions, which I do on occasion. If you want to conceal you have to have a permit. Not sure about open carry laws in other states.

Matoyak
06-23-2010, 09:40 AM
Apparently you Alaska and Arizona are the only unrestricted states. In Tennessee you can carry in the open with no restrictions, which I do on occasion. If you want to conceal you have to have a permit. Not sure about open carry laws in other states.If I understood my mom correctly (I very well might've ignored an important part of this), my mom had to get a handgun license before they would even sell one to her.

Contrast that with the fact that you can buy a shotgun no problem... ~shrug~ Dunno.

Brita
06-23-2010, 09:43 AM
LOL.

The only issues I have with feminism are the name, and the idea which exists among some that claim the label that "it's men's turn for a change". Asking by who's definition is a bit of playing the no-true-scotsman game, especially considering the label functions to attract that kind of thought.


You brought the term up, no one else. Yes, I find many of the connotations surrounding the term "feminism" offensive, and when I am expressing anger and you respond with "Feminism rears it's ugly head", um ya, that's pretty offensive.

Back to the OP- pain is an integral part of this device because it (theoretically) incapacitates the perp so that the victim has a chance to flee. If it didn't cause pain, and the perp would know what just happened, it could escalate the violence. And actually, this is one of the big problems I have with this device- it could escalate the situation, even with the debilitating pain factor. I would be interested to know the stats and "post commercial" findings of this device. Is it effective? Has it worked as promised?

@ T- I can't imagine this device being necessary here in North America except under extreme circumstance (no, I don't want to really imagine what those circumstances would be)- but in a place like South Africa, where you are taking your life in your hands just to go grocery shopping (in some areas), I think it is an important piece of protection. Remember, this was created by a woman who lived in the country with the highest rate rate in the world. It is arrogant for us to assume we can even imagine what that world is like and what is needed.

Davian93
06-23-2010, 09:51 AM
Mmm...waffles.

http://2pat.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/belgian-waffle.jpg

Yellowbeard
06-23-2010, 09:52 AM
just echoing that this thing seems rather barbaric. but you know what? rape is a barbaric crime too. seems to me to be fighting fire w/ fire, KWIM?

i got no issues w/ a woman wearing one for defensive purposes.

Sinistrum
06-23-2010, 09:55 AM
Is that what you'll say when the case is before you of someone using one maliciously? That this product is no more dangerous than a car or fertilizer, and should be treated as such?

Bet the guy at the other table will have a field day.

No, I just won't talk about the product all that much. Because it wouldn't be that important to a criminal case in actually proving a crime. It wouldn't be the thing on trial, the person who used it would be. Instrumentalities of crimes are circumstantial evidence, and aside from a few special statutes (vehicular manslaughter for example), don't actually have to be proven in order to convict. They do little to nothing to prove intent, which is the most diffucult yet important element of any offense. When someone shoots someone else, we don't go off on anti-gun tirades in closing arguments. We talk about the person who used the gun.

Verin Mathwin
06-23-2010, 02:11 PM
I don't really see what this device is meant to accomplish. The only thing it does is stop the man from getting to the point of ejaculation. The woman is still going to have to go through the traumatic experience of being over-powered by a man and having him insert his penis into her vagina against her will.... It just won't last as long as it would have. I would imagine that a lot of the emotional and psychological damage would already be done. Maybe not to as great of an extent as it would have had the man finished, but its still there. Oh, and there is a good chance he will be caught for his crime too, that's really the only benefit I see from this. Which I admit is a very good benefit.

Brita
06-23-2010, 02:45 PM
I don't really see what this device is meant to accomplish. The only thing it does is stop the man from getting to the point of ejaculation. The woman is still going to have to go through the traumatic experience of being over-powered by a man and having him insert his penis into her vagina against her will.... It just won't last as long as it would have. I would imagine that a lot of the emotional and psychological damage would already be done. Maybe not to as great of an extent as it would have had the man finished, but its still there. Oh, and there is a good chance he will be caught for his crime too, that's really the only benefit I see from this. Which I admit is a very good benefit.

Yes, that is another main criticism- it doesn't stop penetration. I think the idea (or hope) is that if men know these are floating around, they may think twice about doing it. Also, stopping ejaculation is a significant benefit- trust me on this one.

Ivhon
06-23-2010, 02:48 PM
Yes, that is another main criticism- it doesn't stop penetration. I think the idea (or hope) is that if men know these are floating around, they may think twice about doing it. Also, stopping ejaculation is a significant benefit- trust me on this one.

I was going to post that stopping the ejaculation would be a great AIDS preventative - particularly in the context of an African nation. However, unless the device could contain the inevitable copious bleeding, it would not be effective in that purpose. Still good for stopping unwanted pregnancy resulting from rape.

Firseal
06-23-2010, 07:24 PM
I love how even the proponents of this dentata are willing to call it barbaric and... yep, just checking, 'evil'. It means even those who think it is worthwhile in some way have no problems admiting it is a vile piece of work.

A couple things, though. One, this kind of weapon isn't like a gun - a gun is offensive weapon primarily. It can act (very well) as a deterent by going, "Hey, I have a gun. I can use it to kill you" which is generally taken at the face value of 'holy crap, that person has a gun, they can kill me.' The dentata, particularly a maiming one such as is under discussion, hasn't got that degree of offense in any way, shape, or form. It is a weapon, with no other purpose than to injure and humilate, that cannot even be used effectively to bluff. Sayig, "I am wearing a dentata" is like having either a gun or a finger in a pocket and pointing it at someone, saying it is a gun. You might scare them off, but without showing, a lot of people are going to assume it is a finger anyway if they are dead set on trying you.

That won't cut down much on rapes, more's the pity, and while it will make some percentage of rapists think twice... if they are going to try it, I don't think this will do jack to stop it. All you are doing is, in the event that it actually happens and the dentata is used, that the man is immediately injured. In the case of rape? Great. If this dentata is being abused, which is the primary fear I have regarding it? Then that's equally terrible, but in the exact opposite of the way it is intended to be used. Which, by the way, makes all the gun / dentata metaphors floating about meaningless. Dentata aren't anything like guns, weapon-wise.

This is not a powerful tool of law enforcement; if used right, sure, but if there is any element of doubt in the story, it becomes he said, she said, but this time both have injuries and courts have enough trouble untangling rape cases without this new dimension. This is a piss-poor preventative measure only applicable in, as some have pointed out, the cumulation of the rape.

What a dentata is, is a weapon in the nature of a trap. The dentata is the sexual assault version of the caltrop, or the bear trap, with any side usefulness either offers (and slight do either metal freestanding spikes or oversized, steel-toothed traps offer in non-weaponized use) not of a gun or a bulletproof vest as has been suggested. This is a weapon of stealth and ambush. Even a threat of it doesn't work - at least, no more than a sign saying traps ahead might make a hunter wary.

Equating rapist with hunter - some might turn back due to being wary. Others will get mean, others more violent, and in some parts of Africa, more violent sometimes means 'just shoot them'.

I cannot in any way see this as anything more than a barbaric bloody-minded novelty, capable of wounding maliciously as or more easily than it can righteously defend. It isn't a godsend to the women of Africa. It's handing them bear traps as a preventative measure.

... anyhow, to address some points. Matoyak, nameless, according to the article at the start, the barbs are probably made of latex much like the sheath, or at least that was my understanding. Probably plastic of some kind, anyway, as this is not meant to cause the woman discomfort, thus whatever the barbs are made of, they probably aren't so dangerous as to go through the sheath and into, ah, sensitive areas. Dentata are defensive, and as defensive tools they are expected to not hurt that which they are meant to protect, even this... rather vile version of them.

Sinistrum, my point was that, in the case of abuse of one of these, that an abuser of the dentata is wearing one is evidence of forethought. That is, if someone is wearing a tooth'd cootch then lures another into inserting something into it, which is exactly how this product would be abused, it's presence is indicative of some degree of intent. Again, this isn't like a gun, and in your comparison, is actually like unto the car. If someone is damaged unjustly with one of these, I think the case of vehicular manslaughter is probably more of the nature than a shooting, because the nature of a dentata is fundamentally different than a weapon that has to be held, pointed, and fired/swung.

nameless
06-23-2010, 08:03 PM
This is not a powerful tool of law enforcement; if used right, sure, but if there is any element of doubt in the story, it becomes he said, she said, but this time both have injuries and courts have enough trouble untangling rape cases without this new dimension.

I agree that it'd be useless in establishing non-consensuality. Only a rape kit can do that. This serves a complimentary function. The rape kit proves that a given woman was violated but doesn't tell you who did it, and the hospital records of Rape-aXe removal prove a given man violated someone*. Neither piece of evidence would be sufficient on its own to prove beyond reasonable doubt that woman A was assaulted by man B.

*in the case of abuse or entrapment the removal records would show that sex took place but the lack of a positive rape kit would make it difficult for prosecutors to argue the sex was not consensual.

edit: I'm not sure I understand the comparison to vehicular manslaughter. If I read you correctly you're pointing out that the misuse of one of these weapons indicates premiditation and proves intent, which is exactly the opposite of manslaughter. Manslaughter with intent is called murder.

Kurtz
06-23-2010, 08:03 PM
Masochist's wet dream.

Would take a particularly demented woman to wear one of these I presume?

nameless
06-23-2010, 08:11 PM
I'm guessing their principle market is women who've already been raped multiple times and are willing to go to any lengths to prevent it from happening again, so yeah, for a given definition of "particularly demented."

Frenzy
06-23-2010, 11:16 PM
Sorry, i can't help myself.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_o6pSkPEsRPQ/SbwilxUgCbI/AAAAAAAAB4w/-FaDxzAVrek/s400/cel_wfrr_boobytrap_lf.jpg
"Nice booby trap."

Firseal
06-24-2010, 12:14 AM
edit: I'm not sure I understand the comparison to vehicular manslaughter. If I read you correctly you're pointing out that the misuse of one of these weapons indicates premiditation and proves intent, which is exactly the opposite of manslaughter. Manslaughter with intent is called murder.

The reason I compare is that, with a gun crime - it's a gun. You can argue the instrument's element in that crime so far. With a car, you can claim that you lost control, or that they stepped in the way. You can claim that there is an accident, or you forgot something. It introduces doubts and theories that it is hard to get when discussing a gun crime (or, in simplier terms, it is harder for a defendant or witness to get on the stand and logically say, 'whoopsie' or 'I didn't mean it' with a gun crime.) With a dentata, I can see arguments of, 'forgot it was there' or 'I didn't mean to' or... hell, I dunno. But unlike a gun, which is just an element of a case, a dentata, like a car, is probably going to be a more complicated thing to argue for either side. Ironically, that holds whether righteous (being used to prevent rape) or ruinous (being used as... forgive the phrase... a mantrap) in it's usage. After all, part of a rape kit is semen collection, and... well, I hate to say this, but some men can endure more pain than others. I don't necessarily buy that a latex sheathe and barbs attached to it can't be removed if someone with a pair of wicked sharp scissors and enough pain endurance is willing to put in the effort.

Also... thank you ever so much for making me imagine that...

Anyhow, any such case, or any other method of removal, and the dentata has effectively made proving the rape harder, since if the male refuses to visit the hospital and gets other assistance to remove the dentata from his genitalia, what are the cops going to do? Short of a court order to drop pants, I mean.

Again. I am anti-really-dumb-ideas. This is one, and that it is nothing but an appeal to pathos and the desire to see rapists injured as it's only selling point I am disgusted any country, even one with the problems of South Africa, would so much as blink over banning it.

But again, that's reason, a logos argument, and as this is pure pathos... yeah. I reinterate the last point of my first post. I'm sure they'll be on the market eventually, and be very popular, and cause terrible things.

I'll be just as disgusted then, too.

Sinistrum
06-24-2010, 01:10 AM
The reason I compare is that, with a gun crime - it's a gun. You can argue the instrument's element in that crime so far. With a car, you can claim that you lost control, or that they stepped in the way. You can claim that there is an accident, or you forgot something. It introduces doubts and theories that it is hard to get when discussing a gun crime (or, in simplier terms, it is harder for a defendant or witness to get on the stand and logically say, 'whoopsie' or 'I didn't mean it' with a gun crime.) With a dentata, I can see arguments of, 'forgot it was there' or 'I didn't mean to' or... hell, I dunno. But unlike a gun, which is just an element of a case, a dentata, like a car, is probably going to be a more complicated thing to argue for either side. Ironically, that holds whether righteous (being used to prevent rape) or ruinous (being used as... forgive the phrase... a mantrap) in it's usage. After all, part of a rape kit is semen collection, and... well, I hate to say this, but some men can endure more pain than others. I don't necessarily buy that a latex sheathe and barbs attached to it can't be removed if someone with a pair of wicked sharp scissors and enough pain endurance is willing to put in the effort.

This entire paragraph made absolutely no sense. Guns are never "elements" of a crime that a prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The closest that it comes to is aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and there are multiple kinds of deadly weapons of which guns are considered one. Cars are a SPECIFIC element of the offense of vehicular manslaughter. Furthermore, the intent element to vehicular manslaughter is mere recklessness. So you can't argue "oops it was an accident" in a lot of cases and avoid a conviction. Furthermore, accidental discharges of guns can an do happen. So yes you can argue, quite easily, the "oops" theory with a gun. Your entire analogy regarding dentata and cars/guns completely fell apart with your misapplication of legal terms.

This is one, and that it is nothing but an appeal to pathos and the desire to see rapists injured as it's only selling point I am disgusted any country, even one with the problems of South Africa, would so much as blink over banning it.

Yanno, I am constantly amazed at how easy it is for some to self-righteously condemn efforts at self-defense and deterence from attack from the safety of their computer chairs. I think if you couldn't take your safety for granted as you do now, owned a vagina, and had been sexually assaulted a few times, you might be able to see why there is more behind this than pathos.

Firseal
06-24-2010, 02:21 AM
This entire paragraph made absolutely no sense. Guns are never "elements" of a crime that a prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The closest that it comes to is aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and there are multiple kinds of deadly weapons of which guns are considered one. Cars are a SPECIFIC element of the offense of vehicular manslaughter. Furthermore, the intent element to vehicular manslaughter is mere recklessness. So you can't argue "oops it was an accident" in a lot of cases and avoid a conviction. Furthermore, accidental discharges of guns can an do happen. So yes you can argue, quite easily, the "oops" theory with a gun. Your entire analogy regarding dentata and cars/guns completely fell apart with your misapplication of legal terms.



Yanno, I am constantly amazed at how easy it is for some to self-righteously condemn efforts at self-defense and deterence from attack from the safety of their computer chairs. I think if you couldn't take your safety for granted as you do now, owned a vagina, and had been sexually assaulted a few times, you might be able to see why there is more behind this than pathos.

First, I was making a guess, dear. Shall I call in another lawyer who isn't already hostile to judge whether I am full of crap? You seem to be somewhat biased. However, that's law, and you are right, you know more than me about that.

On your other points, though:
A: You have no room to call anyone self-righteous, Sinistrum.
B: My home has nothing on South Africa in terms of violence. Neither does yours. But of the three cited references in the opening paragraph, all by women, presumably all women who live in South Africa, two think the same thing I do and the other invented this thing. So while I may be completely safe, snug, and happy where I am, those who are not still have the decency to call this what it is.
C: Despite the fact my home is a lot safer than South Africa, I don't exactly live in the safest of neighborhoods. I do not take my safety for granted. However, I do not own a vagina, and none of the assaults I have suffered had a sexual dimension, so you are right there. I would like to think I still would believe this dentata barbaric and vile if those things about me were true. Of course, claiming I would feel differently if I was a girl, had been attacked, and wasn't a self-righteous prig (as you claim I am) is exactly the pathos bull I was pointing out is the main thrust of the arguments for using this device.
You just want to score a point by painting me as incapable of empathy. M'kay. I'm a robot. Doesn't make dentatas of this maiming sort any less vile.

Terez
06-24-2010, 05:14 AM
@ T- I can't imagine this device being necessary here in North America except under extreme circumstance (no, I don't want to really imagine what those circumstances would be)- but in a place like South Africa, where you are taking your life in your hands just to go grocery shopping (in some areas), I think it is an important piece of protection. Remember, this was created by a woman who lived in the country with the highest rate rate in the world. It is arrogant for us to assume we can even imagine what that world is like and what is needed.
I have actually talked to some South Africans about it, and they agree it's dumb.

I think the idea (or hope) is that if men know these are floating around, they may think twice about doing it.
How does that make sense? If they know about it, they'll just think twice before plunging without checking for it. And if they find it, don't you think it will go a lot worse for the woman than if she hadn't used it?

yks 6nnetu hing
06-24-2010, 06:23 AM
late to the discussion but here's some thoughts:

1) My main problem with this thing is that it only works once. You're assuming that a woman who is that afraid of being raped has reason to assume that she'll be attacked by a single man, not a group. That's a bit stupid. Just look at the Kyrgyz horror or read some reports of the Chechen wars... individual people are usually quite ok (unless they're psychopaths but that's a different line of discussion, I'll leave that to Camel), it's when the herd mentality takes over that bad things happen. Wearing the thing while in reasonable fear of being gang raped is basically suicide. Although, according to some of those stories, those women would actually rather be dead.

2) Dav - those waffles looked absolutely disgusting.

Brita
06-24-2010, 09:35 AM
How does that make sense? If they know about it, they'll just think twice before plunging without checking for it. And if they find it, don't you think it will go a lot worse for the woman than if she hadn't used it?

Yep, you are right, it probably would. Like I said earlier, I'd be interested to see how this is working our in "real life". It has been available for 5 years now. Their official website is very lacking in any significant research, results or data to support the idea that this device is actually working.

As much as I want an answer to the problem of rape, I don't think this is it. It is too easily avoided, it doesn't prevent penetration and it could escalate the violence. There are just too many negatives to justify the unproven positive.

Notice I didn't mention that this could be used as a weapon against men as a major detractor. That is not a show-stopper for me. Like I said earlier, men are born with a natural device that can (and is) used as a weapon, both their physicial strength and their penis. Whatever is created to help women defend themselves will be looked at on the merits of it's proven usefulness. The fact that it can be misused is life. Everything can (and is) misused. If an amazing and effective device comes along, you will not hear me say "Oh, but some crazy woman might use it maliciously, let's forget about it and just keep getting raped maliciously". Nope, sorry.

nameless
06-24-2010, 05:24 PM
Women are born with plenty of natural weapons too. They have the same teeth, fingernails, fists, foreheads, and sharp elbows as the other half of the human race. Men do have a natural advantage in terms of strength but it's less of an advantage than you'd think at first. You don't need to have the physique of a bodybuilder to hurt someone; disabling a human body only requires a few dozen pounds per square inch of force if delivered to the right location. The real disparity in self-defense and aggression comes from social conditioning that strongly encourages men to become at least passingly familiar with violence and strongly discourages womem from doing anything of the sort. The myth is that men are strong and women are weak. The reality is that men and women both are incredibly frail and easy to injure. Of course, the things a 100-pound woman would need to do to repel a 200-pound attacker with her bare hands are if anything even more gruesome than what Rape-aXe does. I guess the point is that there are already any number of equalizers available, not the least of which is self-defense training, but almost all of them require the will to cause serious bodily harm to your attacker, which many women have been conditioned to avoid. I've heard of self-defense teachers who tried to overcome this conditioning through desensitization by practicing "eye gouges" on halves of oranges, and apparently even pushing their thumbs two knuckles deep into an orange rind was enough to make most of the students nauseous.

tworiverswoman
06-24-2010, 05:54 PM
The real disparity in self-defense and aggression comes from social conditioning that strongly encourages men to become at least passingly familiar with violence and strongly discourages womem from doing anything of the sort. I strongly suspect that disparity is even more rigidly enforced in places like South Africa. From some of the things I've read, a lot of the men in places like that don't really even see rape as a wrongful act. Except possibly in that it might damage the "resale value" of some other man's daughter.

Sei'taer
06-24-2010, 07:00 PM
Showed this too my wife. Her response was "that's just sick." Then she said, "how do you take it out?" Then she wondered when the first lawsuit would be for some black widow using one against men.

Brita
06-24-2010, 07:45 PM
You make excellent points nameless- I fully agree. We all know mothers can dig deep to protect their children, but what women don't realize is that they can find that strength to protect themselves anytime.

Firseal
06-25-2010, 12:02 AM
You make excellent points nameless- I fully agree. We all know mothers can dig deep to protect their children, but what women don't realize is that they can find that strength to protect themselves anytime.

Brita, twice you have referred to men as having been born with a natural weapon in the penis. Elsewhere in this thread, someone refered to the WoT plot point that under the proper circumstances, anything can be a weapon.

I feel the need to address both these points. One - the penis is one hell of a piss poor weapon. To do any damage it needs to be erect, and have access to a particular part of the body it can damage. As nameless pointed out, teeth, elbows, finger and toenails, fists, even the skull make better weapons people are born with - and they are equal opportunity. The penis, when it is used as a weapon, is a tool of humilation brought to play once other factors have won a male a fight, and only if the male is of a particular mental bent. The penis is an absolutely terrible weapon, and frankly, outside of rape is ... not really as much of a weapon. More, as women are generally more agile than men, and their legs aren't much weaker than a males... why, I could be saying your legs are a weapon. I'd be as right as you.

The human body is a weapon. Men just get the Swiss Army Version, with the extra - nominally useless - attachment that occasionally gets unfolded, usually for silly reasons.

(Small point - nameless? Shatter the collarbone. Relatively easy, only takes a couple pounds of pressure and it isn't a tiny target. Most attackers, regardless of size, would be given pause at the least, and it is a lot less invasive. Noses are also fun, with all the extra nerves. Solar plexus if you think you can get the area right, but without a class that one is harder to ID in a pinch. Plus, to reference the current discussion, in a female - male fight hitting the genitals is perfectly fair. )

Also in WoT, right alongside the point that anything can be a weapon (brought up with [I]damane training as well as by several pragmatists around combat) is the equally valid plot point that some things are just weapons (the entire rationale of Aiel carrying spears, as hinted at in tDR and spelled out in tSR, not to mention the internal struggle Perrin has between axe and hammer, starting subtly early in the series [I do believe hints as early as the first time he kills a man... tEotW, Whitecloak...? I do need to reread], ramping a bit up once he gets the hammer, then hitting hyper in the later books.) Even assuming that all or part of the human body is a weapon, no part of us is just a weapon. The dentata is only a weapon, as per my earlier point. Just clarifying here.

Ivhon
06-25-2010, 12:41 AM
Brita, twice you have referred to men as having been born with a natural weapon in the penis. Elsewhere in this thread, someone refered to the WoT plot point that under the proper circumstances, anything can be a weapon.

I feel the need to address both these points. One - the penis is one hell of a piss poor weapon. To do any damage it needs to be erect, and have access to a particular part of the body it can damage. As nameless pointed out, teeth, elbows, finger and toenails, fists, even the skull make better weapons people are born with - and they are equal opportunity. The penis, when it is used as a weapon, is a tool of humilation brought to play once other factors have won a male a fight, and only if the male is of a particular mental bent. The penis is an absolutely terrible weapon, and frankly, outside of rape is ... not really as much of a weapon. More, as women are generally more agile than men, and their legs aren't much weaker than a males... why, I could be saying your legs are a weapon. I'd be as right as you.

The human body is a weapon. Men just get the Swiss Army Version, with the extra - nominally useless - attachment that occasionally gets unfolded, usually for silly reasons.

(Small point - nameless? Shatter the collarbone. Relatively easy, only takes a couple pounds of pressure and it isn't a tiny target. Most attackers, regardless of size, would be given pause at the least, and it is a lot less invasive. Noses are also fun, with all the extra nerves. Solar plexus if you think you can get the area right, but without a class that one is harder to ID in a pinch. Plus, to reference the current discussion, in a female - male fight hitting the genitals is perfectly fair. )

Also in WoT, right alongside the point that anything can be a weapon (brought up with [I]damane training as well as by several pragmatists around combat) is the equally valid plot point that some things are just weapons (the entire rationale of Aiel carrying spears, as hinted at in tDR and spelled out in tSR, not to mention the internal struggle Perrin has between axe and hammer, starting subtly early in the series [I do believe hints as early as the first time he kills a man... tEotW, Whitecloak...? I do need to reread], ramping a bit up once he gets the hammer, then hitting hyper in the later books.) Even assuming that all or part of the human body is a weapon, no part of us is just a weapon. The dentata is only a weapon, as per my earlier point. Just clarifying here.

god dam eaten posts.

I take you guys' points on the penis itself not being the weapon (I think that may have been poesy). The weapon is about 100 lbs of extra fast-twitch muscle. For example, my wife has had some - not a ton - self-defense training. I have had none. Without a weapon, she would have zero chance against me in a physical altercation. The best she could hope to do would be to throw me off long enough to run away (she can run faster and further than me). No guarantees that she could even do that though. And if my friends (hypothetically) were around - as is frequently the case in rapes - what then?

A big problem that women face in these situations is the risk of trying to fight. Yeah, she can throw punches to the collarbone, solar plexus and balls. So can I...harder and faster (well...except for the balls part, but we guys have kindof a sixth sense about that, don't we. Kicking a guy in the nuts is much easier said than done). If a woman tries to fight or resist a rapist and fails - and odds are stacked against her in most cases - then she is likely to get a rather severe beating on top of the rape. Rape is about power and control - challenge the power or control and the response is more violent.

For that reason, many of the women I know who have been raped - date or otherwise - have chosen to take the "lesser" of two evils and simply submit to the rape. One who tried to resist has several knife scars and cigarette burns to show for it.

Not a good situation to be in, I wouldn't think.

Terez
06-25-2010, 12:59 AM
Wow, this debate got really abstract all of a sudden.

nameless
06-25-2010, 02:38 AM
I take you guys' points on the penis itself not being the weapon (I think that may have been poesy). The weapon is about 100 lbs of extra fast-twitch muscle. For example, my wife has had some - not a ton - self-defense training. I have had none. Without a weapon, she would have zero chance against me in a physical altercation. The best she could hope to do would be to throw me off long enough to run away (she can run faster and further than me). No guarantees that she could even do that though.
That depends a lot on the nature of the altercation. When I wrestled they would occassionally have me practice against guys that outweighed me by over 100 pounds. If they knew how to wrestle the best I could hope for was to stay out of their grasp until they got tired. if they were new to the sport I'd thrash them easily. The biggest guy in the world will fall in you hyperextend his ankles. If it'd been bare knuckles boxing instead of wrestling I would have had a much harder time taking on heavyweights. Ratchet up the level of violence even further to a tooth-and-nail death match and we're back on even footing (almost - reach is still an issue), because the first hit to the eyes, ears, or throat ends the fight no matter which of us lands it. Your wife would need years of boxing lessons to be able to beat you in a fair fight. However, if she were willing to cripple you for life all she'd need to do is land one lucky hit on a vital area. Guys instinctively defend their groin and their eyes, but without training very few people know to protect their eardrums or bother to tuck their chin down to cover their trachea. Most self-defense teachers I know demonstrate these 1-hit maiming techniques on the very first lesson, along with a caveat never to use them unless your life depends on it.

People talk about the "fight or flight" reflex but in conflict between two members of the same species posturing and submission are much more likely, and humans are no exception. The kind of violence our culture glorifies, from boxing matches to bar fights, is almost exclusively based on posturing and submission. In a typical fight the outcome is black eyes and broken noses, not body bags. The attacker is merely trying to force his opponent to submit. This kind of fight heavily favors larger and stronger fighters. Fights to the death do not, which is why a 250 pound female lion can kill a 700 pound zebra just as effectively as a 450 pound male lion. Before the advent of modern medicine even a larger, stronger fighter would take wounds in a death match that would eventually put him in the ground, which is why we developed the whole system of posturing and submission in the first place. A single bite could lead to sepsis, gangrene, and amputation.

And if my friends (hypothetically) were around - as is frequently the case in rapes - what then?

A big problem that women face in these situations is the risk of trying to fight. Yeah, she can throw punches to the collarbone, solar plexus and balls. So can I...harder and faster (well...except for the balls part, but we guys have kindof a sixth sense about that, don't we. Kicking a guy in the nuts is much easier said than done). If a woman tries to fight or resist a rapist and fails - and odds are stacked against her in most cases - then she is likely to get a rather severe beating on top of the rape. Rape is about power and control - challenge the power or control and the response is more violent.

For that reason, many of the women I know who have been raped - date or otherwise - have chosen to take the "lesser" of two evils and simply submit to the rape. One who tried to resist has several knife scars and cigarette burns to show for it.

Not a good situation to be in, I wouldn't think.

Resisting a group of attackers is of course much more difficult. Without a weapon it's pretty much hopeless. With a weapon it's still dangerous, and you run the risk of your weapon being taken away and turned on you. Rape is no exception to the "posture/submit" model of intra-species violence, even though there is a particularly repugnant form of submission on the line. Escalating the level of violence to potentially lethal strikes will give you an advantage for a few seconds, after which your attacker's surprise wears off and they'll respond in kind. In other words, it's a calculated risk against a single opponent and practical suicide against a group.

Davian93
06-25-2010, 07:52 AM
Wow, this debate got really abstract all of a sudden.

Abstract:

http://students.ou.edu/M/Blaine.K.Mc.Farland-1/Jackson_Pollock_Galaxy.jpg

Brita
06-25-2010, 08:08 AM
I feel the need to address both these points. One - the penis is one hell of a piss poor weapon. To do any damage it needs to be erect, and have access to a particular part of the body it can damage. As nameless pointed out, teeth, elbows, finger and toenails, fists, even the skull make better weapons people are born with - and they are equal opportunity. The penis, when it is used as a weapon, is a tool of humilation brought to play once other factors have won a male a fight, and only if the male is of a particular mental bent. The penis is an absolutely terrible weapon, and frankly, outside of rape is ... not really as much of a weapon. More, as women are generally more agile than men, and their legs aren't much weaker than a males... why, I could be saying your legs are a weapon. I'd be as right as you.


So the hundreds of thousands of women that are raped every year just didn't fight hard enough or run quick enough? I know that is not what you are saying, but it comes close to implying that. No matter how you slice it, the FACT that women are raped every day, every minute, proves that it is not a fair fight, and the penis is used as a weapon, no matter how "piss poor", all the time. And yes, if someones legs hurt another human being, then they would be a weapon, of course. Did I say anywhere that only a penis is a potential weapon? NO, I said that it is a potential weapon that only men possess, and is being used as a weapon right now. Like I said earlier, maybe there is a remote chance a woman is crushing a man with her legs right now (no giggity's, it's not the time), but I can guarantee a woman is being raped by a man's penis at this moment.

This thread was about protection against rape, and in rape the weapon is strength and penis. And of course it takes a man of a certain bent to rape- just as it would take a woman of a certain bent to use the Rape-aXE as a weapon. That's the whole point.

I feel like I am coming off as a man hater, which, if any of you know me after my years here, you know that is not true. But why do I feel like I have to explain why rape is a big deal? And why it is a bigger deal than any comparable threat a woman could pose to a man? I am absolutely flabergasted that the threat to women is downplayed so easily by some really good men. "Oh it's not that bad. Only really bad guys would do it, and you girls have teeth and nails you know- I'm sure that would be enough. And if it isn't, your more agile, just slip away" It is a real eye opener for me, and not a good one. It really makes me sad actually. I'm sorry I started the thread, and I think I a going to bow out now.

yks 6nnetu hing
06-25-2010, 08:41 AM
Oh Brita... yes, exactly that.

My own objection to this particular device - as I said- is that it's not efficient enough. As it is, it'll probably cause more harm than good, most probably to the woman. But then, I might be wrong.

The fact is, an average woman will never be able to take an average man (of approximately the same age) in a fight. You can talk about nails and teeth and training all you want but... an average man is heavier than an average woman, taller than an average woman, has better reach, has had more practice at fighting and most importantly in a rape situation: has the element of surprise.

A woman KNOWS this. No matter how equal we are in the society, at work, in the family. We KNOW for a fact, that the man is physically stronger. It is not a bad thing, it's just the way humans are. A lot of the time that knowledge of our own significant others gives us a sense of security, of wellbeing.

I understand that a lot of the discussion is academic (or at least, I really really hope it is), still... it makes me sad and a little bit sick.

Davian93
06-25-2010, 08:42 AM
~tries to come up with an appropriate joke to lighten the mood...decides there aren't any remotely appropriate jokes involving rape...hates it when that happens.~

Yeah, I got nothing.

Ishara
06-25-2010, 09:04 AM
The best she could hope to do would be to throw me off long enough to run away (she can run faster and further than me). No guarantees that she could even do that though. And if my friends (hypothetically) were around - as is frequently the case in rapes - what then?



But if you read the website and the PURPOSE of the RapeAxe, you'd know that this scenario is precisely why it was created! It's designed to create pain in a sensitive area to incapacitate a rapist just long enough to allow the woman to run away to safety. And for the record, the rate of gang rapes in South Africa is also extremely high, so the efficiency of the product could be called into question, but I see no problem with using it. If you rape someone, you deserve to have your junk ripped off forcibly. This is much nicer.
So the hundreds of thousands of women that are raped every year just didn't fight hard enough or run quick enough? I know that is not what you are saying, but it comes close to implying that.
Yeah, I have to say that Firseal and nameless seem to making this argument, even if they aren't doing so deliberately. Ever been overpowered against your will? Ever been dominated by someone even slightly bigger than you? How are your legs going to protect you from attack when moving them at all means moving them apart which gives you an opening for a knee, and then much worse?

Trust me when I say that's the dumbest, most impractical suggested defense mechanism against rape ever. Once someone is between your legs, there's no way that your own are going to be strong, flexible or downright dislocated enough to get someone out of there.

Oh, but maybe if she twists and bucks with her hips to dislodge a rapist? Right. That's not going to help at all, will it?

Nails and biting? Gee, I wonder how easy it is for guys to hold down both hands of a woman with ONE of their own? Especially from a position of leverage, being on top? When a man's upper body strength is vastly superior to a woman's anyways. In fact, cover her mouth with the other! Why not? Don't need your hands to rape, really.

You sound like apologists. You may not mean to, but you do. And it's awful.

Ivhon
06-25-2010, 09:26 AM
Brita, you are coming across as a woman who hates rape. Not men. You are clearly very passionate about the subject, and while that brings about a more assertive tone than you usually use, I don't think for a second that you come across as a man hater. It is possible to be angry and offended at an act that is incredibly damaging and absolutely unfair in its application without generalizing that anger to ALL men.

I also know that it must be exasperating trying to communicate (especially only being able to used typed words) the reality of your situation as a woman to a bunch of men who - by virtue of their reality - can't really get it, no matter how well-intentioned they may be. For my part, I dismissed your "penis is a weapon" sentiment rather casually and - in stereotypically male fashion - put words in your mouth (or fingers, as it were) as to what you meant when you used that phrase. I was mistaken in doing that.

Personally, I think this has been a good and valuable thread. We may have gone off on tangents, as we do here, but a lot of the perspective that people have brought to the topic has helped me to think about it in different ways. Witnessing the passion with which you speak is also a reminder of how viscerally important the subject is. So thank you for the thread.

Ivhon
06-25-2010, 09:33 AM
But if you read the website and the PURPOSE of the RapeAxe, you'd know that this scenario is precisely why it was created! It's designed to create pain in a sensitive area to incapacitate a rapist just long enough to allow the woman to run away to safety. And for the record, the rate of gang rapes in South Africa is also extremely high, so the efficiency of the product could be called into question, but I see no problem with using it. If you rape someone, you deserve to have your junk ripped off forcibly. This is much nicer.



Yeah, that's the point I was trying to get at. I don't have any problems with the barbaric nature of the device - as you say, any guy that is going to rape someone deserves it. I have, through the course of this thread, come to question whether or not it can be effective - to the point where I suspect it might be counter-productive in that once detected it would serve to inflame the perp(s) to the point where the experience is just that much worse.

I don't know what the answer to rape is, other than the (generations) long road approach of raising awareness and educating children. And that doesnt do much for the women who are being raped right now.

Brita
06-25-2010, 09:43 AM
yks and Ishara- thank you for putting your voice behind mine. It means a lot.

Ivhon- thank you so much for the encouraging words. I am not used to being...so angry in my discussions. I usually can stay quite objective and present my arguments rationally. But the emotion that this topic evokes for me is hard to hide, and then for some reason I feel like I am wrong for being so angry and frustrated, and guilty for using strong language. Typical female right? I really appreciate your kind words, and I'm glad I came back to the thread, because I was feeling very discouraged when I left.

I just wanted to clarify, especially for those who may not know me so well from the forums, that the anger is never directed at all men. I have been very fortunate in my life, and have been surrounded by a loving father, brother and husband plus numerous, invaluable male friends who have treated me with respect, love and complete equality. That's why I'm not sure why I get such a visceral reaction to this topic. Maybe all girls do? I don't know. It is rarely spoken of openly, so I really don't know if all women feel this way, or if it just my overactive imagination that leads me too far down the imagination road when this subject comes up.

Davian: it's OK, dear warder and lovely man, not everything needs to be fixed, sometimes I just need to vent ;)

Sinistrum
06-25-2010, 09:56 AM
*grumble grumble grumble* stoopid rep system not letting me get Ishy.

yks 6nnetu hing
06-25-2010, 10:15 AM
I am not used to being...so angry in my discussions. I usually can stay quite objective and present my arguments rationally. But the emotion that this topic evokes for me is hard to hide, and then for some reason I feel like I am wrong for being so angry and frustrated, and guilty for using strong language. Typical female right?

Not you alone. I might be a bit more flammable on the boards than you but this particular topic... it makes me physically queasy just to think about it, to try to imagine the details, the scenarios. It is very hard to remain rational about it, not let emotions take over. Angry, afraid, and yes, there's also that feeling of... shame? Like it's wrong to feel all this anger and hurt. Maybe because I feel as if I'm not entitled to feel this way because I've never been in that situation...

Neilbert
06-25-2010, 10:42 AM
a man's penis that's being forcefully inserted into an unwanted place.


Have you ever read Snow Crash?

Neilbert
06-25-2010, 10:47 AM
Those women aren't feminists. They can call themselves that all they want, but either they aren't or I am not.

And a humanist is something else so I can't be called that.


Egalitarianism. There's actually a word for it that doesn't carry the "womens way of thinking is the proper way of thinking connotations".

And why it is a bigger deal than any comparable threat a woman could pose to a man?

I agree with most of what you are saying, but this is just silly. There are worse things than rape that both men and women can do to each other. I would even argue that social isolation and forms of emotional abuse can be worse to a persons mental health and wellbeing than a single instance of rape.

If you think rape is "the worst thing" then you aren't thinking very hard. It's just an important ingredient in the "worst things" salad.

DahLliA
06-25-2010, 11:52 AM
How does that make sense? If they know about it, they'll just think twice before plunging without checking for it. And if they find it, don't you think it will go a lot worse for the woman than if she hadn't used it?

this. there's gotta be a way to take it out right? so if you're a would-be rapist you stick a finger up there first and feel around. then pull it out and do what you want to.

so you might get a few at first, but they'll learn the trick pretty fast is my guess.

Brita
06-25-2010, 12:10 PM
Egalitarianism. There's actually a word for it that doesn't carry the "womens way of thinking is the proper way of thinking connotations".


I like it.

Ishara
06-25-2010, 01:24 PM
*grumble grumble grumble* stoopid rep system not letting me get Ishy.

Ha ha. Thanks.

And for what it's worth Brita, I don't think you're being overly emphatic. It's important to talk about.

Sei'taer
06-25-2010, 04:57 PM
Typical female right?

Yup!


What? Oh there was more to the post? Oh yes...um.......

~Nods head while moving from side to side to see the game in the background~ You are absolutely correct, Dear.









Sorry Brita, I had to. You kicked my ass at scrabble so many times when I get half a chance...wellll, I'm taking it.

nameless
06-25-2010, 05:37 PM
So the hundreds of thousands of women that are raped every year just didn't fight hard enough or run quick enough? I know that is not what you are saying, but it comes close to implying that.
With any sort of violent crime there are always things you can do to minimize your chance of becoming a victim and maximize your chance of escape. Does this mean that someone who failed to do every single one them is responsible for what happens? Of course not. 100% of the responsibility lies with the shitheads who raped her. I was trying to dispel the myth of female helplessness and point out the availability of self-defense training as an alternative defense strategy to plastic booby traps, not imply that rape victims are somehow to blame because they didn't take the trouble to become kung-fu masters. As I pointed out in other posts there are a number of scenerios in which even a black belt would have trouble defending herself (or himself).


I feel like I am coming off as a man hater, which, if any of you know me after my years here, you know that is not true.
Not at all. In fact, I thought it was kind of strange that you went to as much effort as you did to ensure everybody that you're not a misandrist. For example, youu deliberately distanced yourself from feminism because you thought the association would make you come off as man-hating. If any men on this forum are insecure enough that they believe a criticism of rapists is also a criticism of them, that's their problem. You shouldn't feel like you have to coddle their feelings or water down your points for their sake.

"Oh it's not that bad. Only really bad guys would do it, and you girls have teeth and nails you know- I'm sure that would be enough. And if it isn't, your more agile, just slip away"
Again, that's not what I was going for. Social conditioning has warped the reality of the situation - women are at a disadvantage in a one on one fight - into a sense of complete helplessness. That helplessness is the enemy. Give in to it and you've already lost. I wanted to make sure that everyone knew that they had options in a fight beyond the fisticuffs you see on TV, which disproportionately favor men over women. There's no reason to restrain yourself to playing by the aggressor's rules.

Egalitarianism. There's actually a word for it that doesn't carry the "womens way of thinking is the proper way of thinking connotations".
"Feminism" does not carry those connotations either, no matter what Rush Limbaugh says. In fact, acknowledging that "women's ways of thinking" are the result of specific cultural conditioning rather than biological destiny is one of the key components of modern feminist thought.

yks 6nnetu hing
06-27-2010, 02:11 PM
I agree with most of what you are saying, but this is just silly. There are worse things than rape that both men and women can do to each other. I would even argue that social isolation and forms of emotional abuse can be worse to a persons mental health and wellbeing than a single instance of rape.

If you think rape is "the worst thing" then you aren't thinking very hard. It's just an important ingredient in the "worst things" salad. True, there are worse things that can happen to an individual. For a group of people though, I think rape is the biggest fear for women. And for good reason.

ehm... at the risk of bringing out Godwin's law, women in South Africa probably feel about rape like Jews felt in... say... Poland the week Germany invaded. "it's nto going good for our brethren in the neighbouring area, but surely we're safe here... right? better hide, just in case"

Also, in women's case (dont' know, might also be true in men's case) if there's already emotional abuse, I can't imagine sexual relaitonship being 100% consensual. But this gets us back to Lorena Bobbit, waaay out of the original topic.


Again, that's not what I was going for. Social conditioning has warped the reality of the situation - women are at a disadvantage in a one on one fight - into a sense of complete helplessness. That helplessness is the enemy. Give in to it and you've already lost. I wanted to make sure that everyone knew that they had options in a fight beyond the fisticuffs you see on TV, which disproportionately favor men over women. There's no reason to restrain yourself to playing by the aggressor's rules.

*bang head against wall* it's not about helplessness, it's about reality. in the real world women simply are weaker than men. That's a fact, not a delusion of helplessness. Obviously any being, be it a frog, a deer or a human, who detects a danger, tries to avoid it or overcome it. An antilope runs fast and just in case has horns. Sometimes the lion doesn't catch an antilope... but there's so many of them, eventually he'll get one...

Sure, it could happen that the antelope rips the lion's stomach with the horns, but 99,99% of the time?

So... um... roleplay: you are cornered, the man has a knife, you don't. You fight to the death, yes? yeah, right, I didn't think so. In most cases the will to live is greater than the will to not be raped, although if you thow the possibility of contracting HIV into the mix, that will probably tilt the scales some.

nameless
06-27-2010, 04:49 PM
True, there are worse things that can happen to an individual. For a group of people though, I think rape is the biggest fear for women. And for good reason.
^This. There are many parts of the world where rape is still used as a tool of political control the way lynchings were used in the southern US during the civil rights movement.

*bang head against wall* it's not about helplessness, it's about reality. in the real world women simply are weaker than men. That's a fact, not a delusion of helplessness. Obviously any being, be it a frog, a deer or a human, who detects a danger, tries to avoid it or overcome it. An antilope runs fast and just in case has horns. Sometimes the lion doesn't catch an antilope... but there's so many of them, eventually he'll get one... Weaker, yes. That's a fact. So much weaker they might as well be a gazelle fighting a lion? That's exactly the kind of distortion I was talking about. Besides, this is the 21st century. How much muscle mass does it take to push the release switch on a can of mace or pull the trigger on a stun gun?


So... um... roleplay: you are cornered, the man has a knife, you don't. You fight to the death, yes? yeah, right, I didn't think so. In most cases the will to live is greater than the will to not be raped, although if you thow the possibility of contracting HIV into the mix, that will probably tilt the scales some.

*makes similar expression of frustration and futility*
There are plenty of situations where fighting won't help anything, and some situations where it will help. Not every rapist is a He-man bodybuilder and not every victim is a 90 pound waif. If you decide to surrender it should be because you've weighed the odds (ie is he armed? is he alone? is anyone close enough to hear screaming?), not because you've been trained since birth that you're always going to lose so submission is the only option.

Firseal
06-27-2010, 11:00 PM
[QUOTE=Brita;102457]So the hundreds of thousands of women that are raped every year just didn't fight hard enough or run quick enough? I know that is not what you are saying, but it comes close to implying that. No matter how you slice it, the FACT that women are raped every day, every minute, proves that it is not a fair fight, and the penis is used as a weapon, no matter how "piss poor", all the time. And yes, if someones legs hurt another human being, then they would be a weapon, of course. Did I say anywhere that only a penis is a potential weapon? NO, I said that it is a potential weapon that only men possess, and is being used as a weapon right now. Like I said earlier, maybe there is a remote chance a woman is crushing a man with her legs right now (no giggity's, it's not the time), but I can guarantee a woman is being raped by a man's penis at this moment.[QUOTE]

I was pointing out that the whole damn body is a weapon. I am pointing out that judging an entire gender as armed based on an appendage that isn't an effective is an offensive talking point. I was trying to say that it takes a person to hurt another person, regardless of 'equipment'.

Men are bigger and stronger, which makes most fights unfair as hell. But that's size and strength, not equipment. A bat is just as horrific, actually happens (which is... I haven't the words for how terrible that is, but), and can be carried by anyone. I don't like the position that the dentata (that is the source of this discussion) is worth putting on any open market. I detest, 'the penis is a weapon' because it strikes me as sexism.

If you are talking about violence, talk about violence. Talk about size, strength, muscle mass. Don't take I and every other male who would never, ever so much as touch a woman in this way, and make us armed with 'weapons' when what the weapon that commits rape is is a hateful will, backed by strong arm and vile mind. If I seem offensive, it is because this actually personally offends me.

I am also adamant that this dentata is a weapon designed to destroy, with no assurances it doesn't ruin innocents along the way.

I was not pointing out that women are raped because 'they can't run fast enough'. Any rape that occurs happens because a man decides to beat someone else, then add a sexual dimension to it for extra damage. Agile helps in avoidance, not really much in running. That's something else. But again, you seem to think I believe parts of this are okay. None of this is okay. At all.

This is an entire conversation that delinates the inner realm of not okay.

But I include in the not-okay the object that is herein cited as a possible solution. It's just...

The makers of this dentata want to take one of the most inhumane acts possible, and add new chapters. They say it is fine if some of these things are abused, and some innocent people (who happen to have penises) are destroyed if an equal or greater number of guilty people (who also happen to have penises, and rightly deserve to lose them) are destroyed. They say it is fine it is barbaric, and evil, because they think the only way to combat barbarism and evil is more of the same.

Maybe I am wrong, and I implied that thing I didn't imply. Which would be a unconsciable thing to even think. But every post I read that says this dentata isn't an inhumane, criminally negligent product? It seems to imply precisely what I wrote above, that any abuses resulting from it's use will be no more than... will be fine. Statistics. Not to be worried about. Dandy.

I've not words for how much that disgusts me.

Ishara? Yes, I've been held down and beaten before. It was a long time ago, but I am still not that big a human, and I spent most of my life smaller than the folks around me. It didn't include a sexual bent that I can recall, but I've had a man squat over me and batter me. I've had to try and fight free. Which is why Ivhon's point about a 'sixth sense' about men protecting their groin doesn't really register with me because trust me - I know of one situation where one didn't.

I may sound like an apologist to you. I know it is awful. Because you sound exactly - exactly - the same to me. Justifying the creation of a barbaric thing designed to maim. Not even a dentata, which is, frankly, possible to design in ways that don't make them offensive weapons. One that maims, as it's goal, with all other concerns - including the welfare of the woman - secondary.

Brita, you don't sound like a man hater, but you are about as emotionally invested in this as I am, and it is making you about as dug in at considering this as a necessary evil as it is me decrying it as abomination. Never appologize for how you feel. More, viseral reactions on this are going to be the norm, regardless of gender, because this is something that few people can approach rationally. Any sort of personal invasion is frightening. Rape is pretty much the one invasion that is viewed emotionally, as the worst, even when regarded clinically. It is true, as Neilbert says, that there are things as terrible, that there are things worse. But invasion, intrusion, they are an affront that immediately gets hackles up. Rape may be just one flavor in the 'bad things salad' but it is a particularly strong one.

(and that is one of the weirdest metaphors I have ever written into one of these posts)

I try to remain objective as I can, but as you might tell, that doesn't really work.

Though, if South African women feel about rape like Jews in Poland did about Germans invading (thanks, yks, I was trying not to get into evil Nazis) then it would explain the statistics. Because a huge portion of the Jews didn't hide, didn't run. Jews expected not to be treated terribly, maybe loose some freedoms, so on, so forth, but nothing like what happened. It is why so many of them got on trains, so many walked to camps, into the woods, dug graved they themselves filled. nameless has a point there, if we are to take the reference. They bought that they'd be powerless, they bought that they'd get by anyway if they just went along. So they were massacred so easily that it was like a big reaping machine. If South Africa really is like that, if the women there do feel so powerless, if they do go along so easy assuming that it would just let them get past... that makes for the single best argument for this dentata so far. As well as a population least likely to ever use it.

Because you are describing a population that would never fight the man with the knife in your roleplay. Never even have the thought go through their heads. They'd follow his orders as long as they could, in hopes that when he goes away, they'd be fine. Including answering the simple question for the man, "I will kill you if you lie; Are you wearing a dentata?"

Fighting back? Yes, probably a losing proposition. Letting it happen? Certainly a losing proposition. Wearing something that, if it works, will injure one man to an great but unknown degree, and will make your situation indefinitely worse if he isn't injured enough, finds it first, has friends, or any number of other things suggested above? Also a losing proposition.

But to get this third one, we put a weapon on the market which can maim and is sold in drugstores. You know, like Rite-Aid or CVS or that sort of place.

Now, to clarify on another field: Disagreeing with me is fine. So is being emotionally involved, caring, and being angry at the topic of rape, and affronted at (even percieved) arguments that someone can believe (right or wrong) would retard rape prevention and/or protect those that practice such vile acts.

This is not weak female stuff. Weak females wouldn't discuss rape, would hide from it, shy from it. View the long, sad history of cases where a woman is raped and doesn't report it, hides it, is ashamed. Strong women don't shirk from these sorts of discussions, and being involved, vocal, ardent about preventing and punishing rape is something to be proud of. Strong women aren't afraid to have opinions, nor look for solutions. It is not a bad thing to confront the problem of rape. Don't be ashamed of that strength, even if it means you yell at me. 'Tis better to be angry about this topic. Call it egalitarianism. Call it humanism. (Don't call it feminism. Please.) Because if you can sit, and discuss any of this seriously, and not be angry or upset at some point, then... it'd be bad. Nor is speaking from the heart bad. It's honest, more often, at least.

I just wish that there was a better idea on the table than creating yet another weapon to hurt in terrible and novel ways.

...

At this point, this post is so convoluted I don't even know half of what I wrote. I do this stream of consciousness with minor backward digression so the whole damn thing comes out non-linear, you know. So stopping for now.

Ishara
06-27-2010, 11:18 PM
I loved so much of your post Firseal. Really. I'll retract my above statement and apologize for suggesting you sounding like an apologist. Your clarification removes that doubt from my mind.

I may not agree with you (and I'm not sure I fully disagree, actually), but I can certainly accept and respect your rationale for why you feel the way you do about the product.

I would certainly never suggest that it's the perfect solution. It's just one that you don't need your purse or keys for. Or your hands, or your mouth for.

It is a weapon. Is is designed to hurt, possibly maim and destroy (although the website more than suggests any damage will not be permanent). There is also no assurance that it won't be used against innocents along the way.

But.

The same can be said of any weapon out there on the market, and I'll even limit that statement to the weapons that were designed for the purpose of hurting others, as opposed to things that can be used as weapons in unusual circumstances. I don't think I'm trying to make the argument that if guns and butterfly knives should be allowed, then so should this product, but if they are allowed, then why shouldn't this be?

The fact is, where this product is aimed - ostensibly South Africa, to start - is not where words, or actions are going to resolve the issue of women being raped every minute of every day. Will this product? Obviously not. But, if it makes ONE man think twice before he assaults a woman - well....that may be enough for me. And that may make me an apologist.

yks 6nnetu hing
06-28-2010, 03:04 AM
Weaker, yes. That's a fact. So much weaker they might as well be a gazelle fighting a lion? That's exactly the kind of distortion I was talking about. Besides, this is the 21st century. How much muscle mass does it take to push the release switch on a can of mace or pull the trigger on a stun gun?



*makes similar expression of frustration and futility*
There are plenty of situations where fighting won't help anything, and some situations where it will help. Not every rapist is a He-man bodybuilder and not every victim is a 90 pound waif. If you decide to surrender it should be because you've weighed the odds (ie is he armed? is he alone? is anyone close enough to hear screaming?), not because you've been trained since birth that you're always going to lose so submission is the only option.

As I alrady said, if at all possible any reasonable human being would try to run or fight. I'm not even saying the rapist is a he-man body builder, I'm just saying that you're cornered and you know for a fact that he has a knife.

Also, South Africa? calling out for help = not very relevant. Suburb in US = probably a good idea. Mace? stun gun? do you have any idea how much those things cost (as compared to how much people make) in the areas where rape is so widespread? an actual gun from the black market might be cheaper there.

I don't know what part of the world you're talking about. I'm sure there are societies where women's rights are to basically not whine and make the dinner. In those cases, I suppose yes, the helpless mentality is conditioned to a degree. Were you talking about that or about western women? All in all I think you're still assigning the "helpless waif" mentality to too broad a section of women - much too often a woman in that situation simply is overpowered, afraid, shocked... in a word, helpless. Otherwise the rapist would probably pick someone else, somewhere else. Hence the idea for this particular device.


Firseal? no, I think the Jews in Poland just thought that the Germans were people too and in the end they would be humane. Hindsight: obviously not so humane. Until something that horrible happens to a you, it's hard to imagine that all the stories are actually true. Likewise, most women just trust that most men are human too and in most cases they are ;) I'm sure even in South Africa it's not as if every man is a rapist.

Firseal
06-28-2010, 04:56 AM
The same can be said of any weapon out there on the market, and I'll even limit that statement to the weapons that were designed for the purpose of hurting others, as opposed to things that can be used as weapons in unusual circumstances. I don't think I'm trying to make the argument that if guns and butterfly knives should be allowed, then so should this product, but if they are allowed, then why shouldn't this be?

The fact is, where this product is aimed - ostensibly South Africa, to start - is not where words, or actions are going to resolve the issue of women being raped every minute of every day. Will this product? Obviously not. But, if it makes ONE man think twice before he assaults a woman - well....that may be enough for me. And that may make me an apologist.

I think part of my problem is the availibility - as I said, and as the original article is cited - they are trying to get this marketed in drugstores. A gun, a knife (at least any sort of decent weapon-aimed knife) you have to buy special. Usually, the more dangerous the weapon, the harder it is to get ahold of it. (Though things fall through the cracks, of course) This is similar to the idea that part of training is teaching responsibility. You aren't as likely to abuse training that you have to go through lectures and feel proud of, you aren't as likely to use a gun obtained through paperwork and legal channels (or even some shady channels) for violence. The dentata is, near as I can tell, supposed to be supplied much easier than that. Might make it easier to acquire if you are afraid, but also if you want one for something else.

Then, I am just as worried about every other facet here, so I suppose that isn't so unique. But one of the (very few) good ways to deal with this would be some sort of responsible delivery / commercialization, and like most other aspects, I don't think that this has been well thought out.

...

Honestly, a dentata with some sort of fast acting paralytic agent (preferably one that can operate through membranes and incapacitates quickly - something like a jellyfish or some snake venoms produce), some interesting perminent dyes, and maybe one hell of a dose of itching or burning powders mixed in would be less barbaric (and, if severe enough, certainly either very good at encouraging the would-be-rapist to seek treatment or at least make them easy to identity even after the paralysis wears off), and depending on the chemicals used, possibly as or more safe than this maiming version.

Doesn't fix even half the problems I see, but at least it would be able to perform the same tasks as the barbed dentata (disable and mark) without inflicting perminent damage, lowering the chances of such a device being used in an abusive fashion.

On the other hand, South Africa's commercial tech firms probably have an easier time producing 'safe' (for the woman at least) barbs than a similarly secure chemical cocktail.

Just my two cents before I trundle off to sleep.

Ishara
06-28-2010, 10:52 PM
Honestly, a dentata with some sort of fast acting paralytic agent (preferably one that can operate through membranes and incapacitates quickly - something like a jellyfish or some snake venoms produce), some interesting perminent dyes, and maybe one hell of a dose of itching or burning powders mixed in would be less barbaric (and, if severe enough, certainly either very good at encouraging the would-be-rapist to seek treatment or at least make them easy to identity even after the paralysis wears off), and depending on the chemicals used, possibly as or more safe than this maiming version.

Doesn't fix even half the problems I see, but at least it would be able to perform the same tasks as the barbed dentata (disable and mark) without inflicting perminent damage, lowering the chances of such a device being used in an abusive fashion.

On the other hand, South Africa's commercial tech firms probably have an easier time producing 'safe' (for the woman at least) barbs than a similarly secure chemical cocktail.

Just my two cents before I trundle off to sleep.

LOL - I was all over the idea of jellyfish venom..and then I thought it out, and had a distinctly uncomfortable moment. A dye may work though. Maybe a chalky white? I hate to take it there, but a colour may be hard to detect on some fellows in South Africa... I have to be honest and say that i could sincerely do without the itching and burning though. ;)

Sinistrum
06-28-2010, 10:57 PM
Here is another benefit to consider. Exactly how capable do you think someone who gets tagged by one of these is going to be of raping someone else in the future? The maiming affect isn't just for deterence, pathos, or as a means of defense against specific instances of attack. It also acts as a permanent bar to the future ability to rape.

Terez
06-29-2010, 04:31 AM
Supposedly the damage isn't permanent.

Neilbert
07-02-2010, 01:07 PM
"Feminism" does not carry those connotations either, no matter what Rush Limbaugh says.

I don't know what Rush Limbaugh says about anything ever, nor do I care, but if you don't think the word Feminism carries connotations of Female intellectual superiority you are an idiot.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/full/97/5/941
Results. Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases. Reciprocity was associated with more frequent violence among women (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.9, 2.8), but not men (AOR=1.26; 95% CI=0.9, 1.7). Regarding injury, men were more likely to inflict injury than were women (AOR=1.3; 95% CI=1.1, 1.5), and reciprocal intimate partner violence was associated with greater injury than was nonreciprocal intimate partner violence regardless of the gender of the perpetrator (AOR=4.4; 95% CI=3.6, 5.5).

Interesting.

Don't take I and every other male who would never, ever so much as touch a woman in this way, and make us armed with 'weapons' when what the weapon that commits rape is is a hateful will, backed by strong arm and vile mind. If I seem offensive, it is because this actually personally offends me.

See this is really insane to me. Given the right set of circumstances I would punch a woman straight in the face, not that I would ever expect those circumstances to arise. It's been a long time since I've been violent to anyone, but in the 5th grade a girl (who was larger than me) really liked to kick my shins.... daily... until one day I counterkicked her in the sternum. Only once. I felt bad about it because she cried, but I really didn't care that much because afterwards she stopped kicking me. Am I a horrible person? Of course, as a 5'8" 130lb male many females have the potential to be a legitimate threat.


*bang head against wall* it's not about helplessness, it's about reality. in the real world women simply are weaker than men. That's a fact, not a delusion of helplessness. Obviously any being, be it a frog, a deer or a human, who detects a danger, tries to avoid it or overcome it. An antilope runs fast and just in case has horns. Sometimes the lion doesn't catch an antilope... but there's so many of them, eventually he'll get one...

The image of a rapist as a lion stalking prey in the night is not really true though. IDK about South Africa, but in America most rapes are perpetrated by a friend or family member of the victim. Assault by a stranger on a dark path in the middle of the night does happen, but it is less common.

Sei'taer
07-02-2010, 04:53 PM
Of course, as a 5'8" 130lb male many females have the potential to be a legitimate threat.



You should live a fuller life, sonny! ;)


I'm 6'2" and weigh 225, and there are some women on these construction sites that scare the shit out of me.

nameless
07-02-2010, 04:58 PM
I don't know what Rush Limbaugh says about anything ever, nor do I care, but if you don't think the word Feminism carries connotations of Female intellectual superiority you are an idiot.


"Feminism" refers to over 150 years worth of speeches, literature, and political activism. The only unifying theme among the thousands of different varieties of feminism is the advancement of women's rights. Some of these varieties have made specific value judgements of women's capabilities in relation to men's capabilities, but that does not give the whole movement connotations of female superiority any more than the existence of the Black Panthers gave the whole civil rights movement connotations of "kill whitey."

Opponents of feminism have done an outstanding job of reducing the whole 150+ year history of the movement to a caricature based on a handful of some of the more ridiculous trends that caught on with some feminist groups during the 70s. The reason this was so easy to accomplish is that it gave men an excuse to ignore feminists and maintain their complacency in the face of continuing systemic inequalities.

I detest, 'the penis is a weapon' because it strikes me as sexism.

If you don't use your penis as a weapon, then it isn't a weapon, but it's hard to imagine a rapist's penis as anything but. "Detest" pretty much sums up my feelings about the situation too. One of the reasons rape is such a horrible crime is that it perverts and distorts something that's supposed to be there to make people happy.