I’ve been following this story for a while now. It’s about a " new type of ‘condom with teeth’ aimed at preventing rape" that is now on sale in South Africa.
Here is a link to a site about it (the linked page does have a non-pornographic picture of a penis on it). This site has links to several news stories about the device.
On the one hand, rape is clearly bad. On the other, boobytrapping one’s parts in such a way seems like an ineffective deterrent, and one that might actually wind up getting more people injured.
So what do you say. Rapex good? Rapex bad?
While we are at it, if a woman forgets about it and injures a non-rapist, is she liable? Could she be criminally prosecuted?
Thanks for the link. I tried searching, but didn’t find it. I guess I’m not as sure as you are that it is a hoax. Although, you do raise some interesting questions.
You questioned the device’s existence here:
Here is a picture (Not Safe For Work) of the inventor demonstrating the product.
OTOH, there is some inconsistency in the reporting. Here the inventor is shown holding a prototype of the product, which, according to this article, will not be in production until 2006.
This article indicates that the device is now on sale and gives location and pricing details: “‘The Penis Flytrap chomps rapists!’ a Johannesburg-based newspaper declared a day after the launch of the Rapex, which is expected to sell alongside condoms for about 1 rand (A20 cents) each.” While the launch is early, the details are there.
OTOOH, here first name appears as Sonnette in most of the articles, but on the “company” website, it is shown as Sonnett.
The company is registered in South Africa: cipro.co.za
The idea that you shouldn’t fight back against a rapist because you’ll be killed is NOT TRUE.
It was propagated years ago under the idea that it is better to live and be raped than to face a violent altercation. Anti-rape handbooks from the seventies often state that your best option is to lie there and take it. But this is NOT TRUE. Studies of criminal behavior show that the more resistant a target is, the less likely she is to get raped or further injured. Rapists are not brave men out for a fight- they are looking for an easy target. The very first thing a rapist does to a potential victim is do something that makes her uncomfortable- standing close, making off-color comments- and see if she get angry or if she acts shy and deferential. They don’t bother with the resistent ones.
It would seem to me that all a rapist has to do is first stick a piece of wood or a dildo up there first to disable any device and then proceed with the raping. In short, it sounds monumentally ineffective.
This is not a new concept. These devices were manufactured hundreds of years ago, but were made of metal and had razors/hooks/needles/etc inside (according to The History Channel’s Modern Marvels). I am not a big fan of products that advertise by making their customers afraid, but this product has been around in one form or another for quite a while and I’m sure is quite handy if you live somewhere that you don’t feel safe.
I am envisioning this becoming the next big thing in consensual S&M. Can’t see many women wearing one around though. What if you forget it’s in there and you decide you want consensual sex? That’s gonna suuuuuuuck.
I doubt anyone will debate that. The question is what happens after “excuse me ma’am, your vagina bit me.” I would be willing to wager that more often the rape turns violent, and has done nothing to protect the physical well being of the woman (and hey, the penis allready went there. So… she still got raped, right?)
On the upside, the rapist has been tagged. I’m sure the raped and beaten woman will take great comfort knowing that there’s one less pretty penis out there. :rolleyes:
More effective, I’d think, would be some sort of invisible dye pack that explodes on sex and can permeate condoms. That won’t stop the rape then and there, but it will make proving the identity of the rapist child’s play, and hence deter rape. Also, the dye makes your penis eventually fall off.
“He will obviously be too pre-occupied at this stage,” Ehlers told reporters in Kleinmond, a small village about 60 miles east of Cape Town. “I promise you he is going to be too sore. He will go straight to hospital.”
Simply arming women gives the same effect of deterrence, and it also empowers them. They can defend themselves, rather than passively hope that they attacker doesn’t check for one of these things first, or kill her afterwards. (And this device doesn’t prevent a woman from being violently violated, it just provides instant revenge) This empowerment can go further than just preventing rapes, and give confidence even in non-violent situations.
And that’s not even addressing the issues that lead men to rape.
Yeah, because he tested it? The language he uses is not very assuring. “pre-occupied” and “too sore”? So the people this product was tested on reported that they were “too sore to continue to rape a woman, less punch her a few”?
How can Mr. Ehlers accurately predict the actions of a rapist on these conditions? I admit my own ignorance on the subject, being neither a rapist nor in contact with said flytrap. However, i’m not the one claiming this is a miracle product for the safety of women. The rape has allready happened for this product to have come into play.
I don’t understand what is being debated here. Do you really think this is a good idea??
It just occured to me… isn’t this a Booby Trap? It doesn’t discriminate which penis it acts upon. It could be a danger to husbands and fetuses worldwide!
Oh my gawd. If she “forgets” about it, she’s dumber than seawater and shouldn’t be breeding by any means. You simply don’t forget about inserting teeth into your vagina. Sorry. Won’t happen. I’ve never, in 20 years of menstruating, “forgotten” that I have a tampon inside me, and that doesn’t cause pain and injury to a person I love or lust!
If she decided to use one for petty revenge against a man she didn’t like? Of course, she should be charged with assault (or is it battery?) and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Why wouldn’t she be?
Would wood or plastic hook the little hooks? It seems that flesh is uniquely textured; a piece of wood wouldn’t remove a tampon or a sponge, for example.
The rape vicim can also take comfort in the fact that this device needs to be surgically removed, which means ger attacker needs to go to the ER and be subjected to a great deal of interest on the part of hospital staff and police. This, for the first time, is clear physical evidence of rape found on the perpetrator’s body rather than the victim’s.
And don’t underestimate the value of feeling powerful. Rape isn’t horrible because a penis enters a vagina, it’s horrible because the victim feels so powerless and helpless. This gives her body one form of force which she would otherwise not have against a larger, more muscled opponent.
And I think the hope is that the device, if well marketed, would deter rape out of fear - who wants to risk raping if 10% of the women out there have teeth in their vaginas and you can’t tell which ones? Heck, even if this is a “hoax” it could be effective: convince rapists that some women have teeth in their vaginas, and it won’t matter that none of them do. Penis Roulette is not a game many men would willingly play!
I do share concerns about pissing off a rapist and causing him to become (more) violent, but I’m not sure how to test that without going to market with it. It’s not like you’re going to find rapists volunteering for product testing.
If it were widespread, and rapists knew 10% of women were using it, I assume they would check first and remove the thing (I assume it has to be easily removable).
I think if they didn’t say anything and the attacker only found out there were barbs up the woman’s vagina after said barbs lodge in his penis… yeah, I think he’d be a little pissed. If they warned him they were wearing the condom, on the other hand…
Man, isn’t South Africa the country that lets you mount flamethrowers on your car to deter car thieves?
