Or just probe her with his fingers first, remove the device if he finds one.
A device called a dentata (it injected the man’s penis with a sedative) played a minor role in Neal Stephenson’s Snow Crash.
In that episode, the femal protagonist Y.T. went to bed willingly and eagerly with the antivillain Raven. But she had forgotten to remove her dentata first, and wound up under an unconscious Raven.
WRT to the device being debated here, I predict there will be enough cases where the man’s criminal intent cannot be proven (even by the preponderance-of-evidence standard used in civil tort cases) that the manufacturer will shortly be bankrupted by liability suits.
I mean, there must be a safe way to do that, or how would the woman ever get it out of her?
That’s exactly what I was referring to.
Also, don’t the odds of contracting a sexually transmitted disease go up by a huge factor when your vagina contains a dick mangler?
You seem to be assuming the relatively low incidence of rape in first-world nations that aren’t in a state of war. The device was invented in a country where rape is a problem of epidemic proportions. Rape is also used as a weapon in armed conflicts (even though every reputable nation and organization condemns it). Those seem to be the kind of situations the inventors have in mind.
That said, the best argument against the device seems to be that it won’t be effective once would-be rapists are aware that it exists. They’d just check for it first. And in a case where an attempted rape isn’t premeditated, I assume that the attacker is in an adrenaline-charged state, and injury would be met with rage rather than flight.
You’ll want to throw a NSFW on that cite.
Mentioning pierced, cut penises isn’t enough warning?
OK - boys and girls, BMEzine is NOT safe for work. For a lot of people, it’s not safe for outside of work, either. Be warned that convulsive leg-crossing, crotch-covering, and whimpering may ensue. Google at your own risk.
You mean - nothing like common decency, love, etc?
You know, color me weird, but I try not to
- have sex with people until I am reasonably sure they intend me no harm
- try not to piss off my loved ones to the point they will cause me physical harm.
I’ve been angry, enraged, and all sorts of upset at my lovers. I have yet to do more than yell at them. Seriously, is it that widespread a problem in your life that you fear those most close to you?
No argument there - I don’t think these will stop rape even if they become common, just change the nature of rape. Then again, if you live a backward cesspool of a country where a raped women is either charged with and convicted of a sex crime, or her family will subject her to an “honor killing” or expect her to kill herself to erase the “shame” upon the family honor, maiming a potential rapist starts to make a lot more sense. After all, if he succeeds, either the authorities or her family will kill her. If it injures him but not enough to disable him, he’ll kill her. But if hurts him enough for her to get away, she lives another day. And there really are places like that in the world.
Unfortunately, women who do live in such places are unlikely to have the money to buy such a device.
Worth it for the 900,000 women who didn’t get raped at all.
This is a product for South Africa not the US. If you look at the patent number, it’s not an American patent; ours are just numbers like 12345678. In South Africa, a million women are being raped each year. Anything that could prevent rape is potentially something good. Yes, it probably won’t do much good if you’re wearing it when you are actually raped, but that’s really not the point of the device. The point is to put a curb to the enthusiasm of the gung-ho, “Hell, we got AIDS already! Let’s rape us some women!” that seems to be prevalent in the area.
Houses which have a dog are much less likely to be robbed for instance–even though it might only be a small dog. You could just as easily argue that having a dog would just mean that the robber would get bitten, which would make him mad, and thus kill the owners of the house. And that might be true, but still the point in having a dog isn’t so you have an animal there to kill robbers. It’s a preventative measure.
Bad guys are, simply, lazy. They’re like water, flowing down the course of least resistance. If there’s two houses and one has a dog and one doesn’t, it’s less of a hastle to deal with the dog, potential barking, potentially getting bit, and potentially having to deal with the owners and the police. And potentially Rapex could be the same. Sure you wouldn’t know who has it on and who doesn’t, but really that’s not a bad thing. I’d be less likely to want to dip my stick if I had no idea whether it was going to find itself shredded the second I did. I’d rather not have to worry about it–and lazy criminals could potentially think that way and end up just jerking themselves off.
Yes, it might end up not changing the situation in South Africa, and yes it might end up making things worse, but there’s no knowing that until it’s been tried. And if it is tried and makes things worse then so be it, but it’s not like the situation is so wonderful in the area that messing around with various possibilities is a bad thing.
I wouldn’t recommend it for the US just because rape isn’t a epidemic here. But for a country where it is, and there’s some potential solution that’s never been tried before, and the women themselves are willing to try it, then so far as I would be concerned you might as well allow it until you have some evidence to believe that it worsens the situation.
Obviously my male bias makes me :eek: at the thought of such a device.
But given that I have absolutely 0% chance of attempting rape in my lifetime (if it ain’t consensual, it ain’t cool) makes me worry significantly less about the existence of this… object.
I would imagine that any woman crazy enough to use this device for anything other than self-defense would find some way to cause harm one way or another.
The trick is to knock on wood that you don’t find one.
(Actually, the trick is to knock on wood that *I * don’t find one. So all of you send me your good karma, chi, prayers, etc…)
Still… this… thing… sounds like something out of the Spanish Inquisition.
This is exactly what I was thinking. I’m sure a large number of rapists have STD’s especially in say South Africa. Somehow I think having your vagina filled with a rapist’s blood is a bad idea.
Common decency is less common than it should be, I’m afraid. I don’t like or trust love.
The problem is, a woman who would let a non-rapist mutilate himself on one of these things is, among other things, going to be dishonest. After all, it won’t work if she tells him. I won’t know that she intends me harm, I won’t know that she’s that mad at me, because if she was the sort to let me know she wouldn’t do something as nasty and underhanded as this.
Yes, but if the equation is what I’m suggesting - where the rape victim is at a greater risk if she wears the thing - who’s going to use it?
What you’re suggesting is totally rational; I just don’t know if it accurately reflects the way a potential rapist thinks. I’m reminded of what I’ve heard about women’s self-defense classes: the goal isn’t to go Buffy the Vampire Slayer on the guy, it’s to buy the woman a few seconds to run away. They’re advised to keep screaming the whole time and aim for the crotch, and that if they don’t do that and run away as soon as possible, things will only get worse. [Again, this is a summary of what I’ve been told by women who’ve taken these things, it’s not even firsthand.] I’m also not pretending to know what happens in South Africa, but since most rapes are acquaintance rapes, would this help anyway? I mean, if the woman is on a date with a guy she knows and ends up in someone’s bedroom, isn’t she that much more likely to have taken the device out?
I’ve read (no cite handy) that having sex with a virgin is thought to cure AIDS in that area. As far as I’m concerned, anything that can buy a woman or child a few more minutes to get away is worth it.
But your idea that a woman might be married to man for 20 years and suddently decide to use this on her husband, with no warning or hint of dissatisfaction is… bizarre.
Do you sleep in a locked vault to elminate the possibility of your family attacking you while you sleep?
Certainly, dishonesty and psychosis exist, but if you’re in a relationship with someone of that sort Rapex may be the least of your problems.
We’re not that litigous a culture here, I don’t see that happening. I also don’t really see there being such a mass market for this as a tool for revenge.
Having said that, I also don’t see this as being such a great idea for rape prevention. South Africa has the highest incidence of (reported) rape worldwide, and I’m pretty sure a larger percentage than “normal” is gang-rape. Not a good mix for this device, as has been pointed out.
Also the highest HIV infection rates, and a device that pierces the attacker? Also not a good combo.
While I have no hassles with a woman doing anything to her rapist (been raped, not good), I don’t believe that from a design and usage perspective, this device is the answer. Don’t know what is, but this is not it. I’d say it would make things worse.
No, no, no. Rapex goes in the vagina.
But, it’s not the boobies doing the trapping.
And well-said it was. Rape notwithstanding, passionate penetration sans digital titillation should earn a rowdy fellow a prick pricking, eh?
This only holds water if the women in question, in addition to putting in their Rapex, also wear a big sticker on their jeans that says “Secured by Rapex ™ – Lose unwanted attention now. Ask me how!”
In the U.S. I expect it’d be illegal – no spring guns, so no spring cooze, neither. Of course, part of the reason we ban spring guns is because you never know if the guy trying to break in is a fireman or something; rarely will Johannesburg’s Bravest need that kind of access. But potentially some doctor might.
–Cliffy