South Africa anti-rape condom aims to stop attacks - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Lebell · 09-01-2005, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maximusveritas

Yes, they have a greater chance of escaping without being raped. But those who fail to escape after attempting to physically fight back are more likely to be severely injured.

I've never seen ANY data that supports this theory.

Randerolf · 09-01-2005, 09:25 AM

Is this the same thing as rigging a gun to your door to shoot trespassers? I believe that in such cases in the US, the person harmed can be sued in civil court and maybe criminal court as well.

Charlatan · 09-01-2005, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randerolf

Is this the same thing as rigging a gun to your door to shoot trespassers? I believe that in such cases in the US, the person harmed can be sued in civil court and maybe criminal court as well.

We should get one of our lawyers to chine in on this but I think there is a big difference here...

Supple Cow · 09-01-2005, 10:04 AM

The big difference is that trespassers are violating property and rapists are violating persons. It's called self defense.

Gatorade Frost · 09-01-2005, 10:08 AM

I think one of the things is that if you lose your erection, all's fine and dandy, it may or may not come off, but then you've got a bunch of huge holes in your penis for blood to come out and that's gonna take a while to heal up and you'll need a lot of bandages.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

So you want to have a device that, when the woman is raped, discharges a poison? Keep in mind it's still IN her body when the thing is triggered, so any dye or poison or irritant you stuff in it is going to get her too.

I also specifically said that it probably wouldn't work for that one reason in my above post. But yeah, if it could potentially work it would probably have to be on the highest barb of the thing so that it wouldn't you know, get out, but I can see ways it could work effectively with little problems for a person using it for protection.

mystmarimatt · 09-01-2005, 10:15 AM

There's actually historical precedence for this sort of device. One was made during the...Renaissance, If I remember correctly. Although it was super, super painful for the women to wear, as it was made of, you know, iron. I bet it was pretty clunky.

I don't really have an opinion either way on this one.

Sweetpea · 09-01-2005, 10:18 AM

Fantastic idea. I hope it truly protects the women who use it.

Sweetpea

Sweetpea · 09-01-2005, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mystmarimatt

There's actually historical precedence for this sort of device. One was made during the...Renaissance, If I remember correctly. Although it was super, super painful for the women to wear, as it was made of, you know, iron. I bet it was pretty clunky.

I don't really have an opinion either way on this one.

ummm, check your facts, chastity belts were forced on the women by the men (their husband's usually) to ensure fidelity. There is no comparison here.

This is a device that will PROTECT women and will be their choice to wear. The only person it will affect is the individual that chooses to rape.

Sweetpea

snowy · 09-01-2005, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sweetpea

ummm, check your facts, chastity belts were forced on the women by the men (their husband's usually) to ensure fidelity. There is no comparison here.

This is a device that will PROTECT women and will be their choice to wear. The only person it will affect is the individual that chooses to rape.

Sweetpea

Actually, they were mainly used by fathers to protect what they saw as "property". There's a reason why they're called "chastity" belts--they were meant to insure that the father's property--the daughter--remained chaste until marriage. A damaged daughter would not claim as high a bride-price as one left inviolate and pure.

Sweetpea · 09-01-2005, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maskedrider

Is the incident of rape really THAT high? or is it post-desegregation paranoia?

read the article. REPORTED rapes in south africa were 50,000 last year... that was the reported ones, it's typically much higher if you count the unreported attacks.

this is an idea that deserves some merit.

Sweetpea

mystmarimatt · 09-01-2005, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sweetpea

ummm, check your facts, chastity belts were forced on the women by the men (their husband's usually) to ensure fidelity. There is no comparison here.

This is a device that will PROTECT women and will be their choice to wear. The only person it will affect is the individual that chooses to rape.

Sweetpea

I wasn't trying to comment on the use or methodology behind the device. Please don't make assumptions about what I do or do not know, I'm fully aware of the use back then. I was referring only to the design of the device, and how this new one sounds a lot like the historical one.

Lebell · 09-01-2005, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randerolf

Is this the same thing as rigging a gun to your door to shoot trespassers? I believe that in such cases in the US, the person harmed can be sued in civil court and maybe criminal court as well.

No.

The case law I've read against booby traps states that the problem is that a) they are set and then left unattended and that there are legitimate reasons for forced entry into property (such as firemen during a fire or police with a search warrant.)

Obviously this is different.

Sweetpea · 09-01-2005, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onesnowyowl

Actually, they were mainly used by fathers to protect what they saw as "property". There's a reason why they're called "chastity" belts--they were meant to insure that the father's property--the daughter--remained chaste until marriage. A damaged daughter would not claim as high a bride-price as one left inviolate and pure.

True that was one of their main uses. They were also used by some husbands.

Sweetpea

Sweetpea · 09-01-2005, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mystmarimatt

I wasn't trying to comment on the use or methodology behind the device. Please don't make assumptions about what I do or do not know, I'm fully aware of the use back then. I was referring only to the design of the device, and how this new one sounds a lot like the historical one.

thanks for clarifying.

i wasn't trying to be bitchy.

Sweetpea

Ustwo · 09-01-2005, 12:05 PM

Lets hook a homing device on this thing too. Hehe talk about a dilmema for the rapist. Tear it off ya, or get caught

Marvelous Marv · 09-01-2005, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

This sounds like it will find a home in the wacko religious right as well... I wonder if parents can put this in their daughter? It would prevent sex (intercourse) before marriage like little else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stare At The Sun

Howso?

Honestly, I agree that a very extreme parent might force their child to do this, granted, he said it in not so choice terms, but bigoted, no.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suave

No, he qualified it by saying "wacko" and "right", meaning the fanatical groups within religion (I presume primarily Christian religion in this case).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

As others have pointed out, I did say "wacko". If you also look at my post you will see that I said "religious"... Not, Hindu, Christian, Islamist, etc... No modifier.

Nope, I'm still calling this one what it was, a bigoted statement that ridicules a group of people's religious beliefs.

The same posters I quoted above wouldn't be as forgiving if I'd posted a comment like, "This device might be very useful for protecting men in San Francisco from the loony gays there." Notice that I qualified my remark with "loony," and I didn't use a modifier.

Until you can show significant references to Hindus or Islamists as the "religious right," I will give your explanation the consideration it deserves: None.

Thanks for the post. It, and the responses were quite revealing.

Charlatan · 09-01-2005, 12:16 PM

Would it have made you happier if I said... fundamentalist? If so, you can have a, "fundamentalist" free of charge.

The point, which you carefully sniped out of my reply, is that there are already wacko religious types who practice similar actions. Call me intolerant if you wish, but if a religion requires the chopping off little girl's labia or clitoris or sewing their vaginas shut it is just plain wrong.

Surgically implanting an anti-rape device into a young girl... equally so.

Clearly you have already made up your mind that I am a bigot. I will waste no more typing on what I've already established to be a misunderstand about the nature of the device in question.

Suave · 09-01-2005, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guthmund

Yeah, but don't you think once the first dozen or so guys get caught like this, the rapist community will just adjust their methodology? I mean, if kids who barely made it out of high school, can memorize binders of complicated football plays then I imagine a rapist can successfully adjust his technique.

I just don't see how this is going to be very effective.

You are considering rapists in too logical a sense. Rape does not strike me as a logical crime, but an emotional or psychotic one. I'm not saying there might not be some rapists who plan this stuff out, but I'll bet most don't have a "methodology" to adjust, nor a community with which to confer.

Suave · 09-01-2005, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

No.

The case law I've read against booby traps states that the problem is that a) they are set and then left unattended and that there are legitimate reasons for forced entry into property (such as firemen during a fire or police with a search warrant.)

Obviously this is different.

What if the woman is having a vagina fire?

Marv: first off, you used a bad example. Sexual orientation is not a belief system. Your example was like saying "those loony tall people".

While your opinion in this case is as valid as any one of ours, since there are more of us, something resembling a concensus has been reached in the defendant's favour.

analog · 09-01-2005, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

Nope, I'm still calling this one what it was, a bigoted statement that ridicules a group of people's religious beliefs.

The same posters I quoted above wouldn't be as forgiving if I'd posted a comment like, "This device might be very useful for protecting men in San Francisco from the loony gays there." Notice that I qualified my remark with "loony," and I didn't use a modifier.

Until you can show significant references to Hindus or Islamists as the "religious right," I will give your explanation the consideration it deserves: None.

"Religious right" pertains to those people who are both religious and conservative. The terminology itself has nothing to do with preceisely what religion that would be- therefore, any. Just because there's an established group of wackos commonly associated with that terminology doesn't mean they're the ONLY wackos to be associted with that terminology.

I'm not going to bother addressing the apples-to-oranges analogy.

Ustwo · 09-01-2005, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by analog

"Religious right" pertains to those people who are both religious and conservative. The terminology itself has nothing to do with preceisely what religion that would be- therefore, any. Just because there's an established group of wackos commonly associated with that terminology doesn't mean they're the ONLY wackos to be associted with that terminology.

I'm not going to bother addressing the apples-to-oranges analogy.

Come now analog, I don't think there is any doubt what religion was ment by the statement 'religious right'.

Cleaving rabbits on this one is quite silly.

StanT · 09-01-2005, 01:28 PM

On another note, the population of South Africa is 23.5 million, of which 4.5 million are caucasion. Is anyone offended that the demonstration phallus is white? Isn't it a bit bigoted to attribute rape to a minority?

raveneye · 09-01-2005, 01:54 PM

I hate to spoil a good story, but it appears that "chastity belts" never really existed; they are pretty much an urban myth that originated in Victorian England. A couple historians wrote books on the subject awhile back:

Quote:

Copyright 1996 Nationwide News Pty Limited
The Daily Telegraph (Sydney, Australia)

June 24, 1996, Monday

LENGTH: 174 words

HEADLINE: Chastity belts an old joke on modern times

BODY:
THE chastity belt that "unchivalrous symbol of the Crusades" never existed.

They are nothing more than Victorian myths created during the sexually repressed Victorian era.

So say two historians, whose views are shared by some of Britain's biggest museums.

"Apart from a handful of prisoners who wore them for protection against licentious warders, it is unlikely belts were anything more than a handy gag for burlesque writers," historian James Brundage was quoted in the Sunday Times newspaper as saying.

This contradiction of accepted historical wisdom is supported by several British museums which are quietly withdrawing chastity belts from display.

The British Museum has has led the way, branding as a fake a chastity belt that has been on display since 1846.

Britain's Royal Armouries also have decided to remove two belts from display.

Felicity Riddy, of the Centre for Medieval Studies at York University, said: "There is no medieval evidence, from Chaucer or anyone else.

It all points to an early urban myth."

EDIT: If anybody can point me to the modern source (probably the last 30 years) who originated the myth that fathers forced their daughters to wear chastity belts to ensure a high bride-price, I'd be very interested in seeing it.

analog · 09-01-2005, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Come now analog, I don't think there is any doubt what religion was ment by the statement 'religious right'.

Cleaving rabbits on this one is quite silly.

What it literally says, and what some might infer it means, are two different things when defending the use of it. *shrug* All that has to be done is the original poster saying "yes, I meant religious and conservative" and that has to be that- because the words mean exactly that. Assuming otherwise is just that, assuming.

Even though it seems like a small argument, the assertion was made that the original poster was a bigot, or being bigoted, which is by no means a light assertion to make.

Oh- and just to straighten it out for everyone... it slips in and out of the vagina... surgery is required to remove it from the penis, once it's attached. The man inserts penis, comes out with the thing attached to his dick. That's from the actual article. So now we can all stop talking about sewing vaginas shut.

Charlatan · 09-01-2005, 02:12 PM

Just to clear the air...

I can see how you might construe "religious right" to mean "Christian religious right". It was not my intention to make that connection with my poor choice of language. I would include in "wacko religious right" all those who practice an extremely conservative form of religion. As I suggested above words such as "fundamentalist", "orthodoxy", "fringe", "extreme" would have better served. I will attempt to be more careful in my use of language in the future.

I apologize for my carelessness...

I still stand by my statement that a device that would have been surgically inserted into a vagina to prevent rape (or any sexual interference) would be a valuable object to parents who have extreme religious beliefs about the sanctity of their daughters (I believe I have sufficently detailed where I was coming from in this regard).

Seer666 · 09-01-2005, 03:11 PM

I just want to know, how is she going to take it out without fuckin up her hand?

raeanna74 · 09-01-2005, 05:06 PM

This Swedish concept seems like a somewhat more feasible method of protection against rape. Yet it would not protect against AIDS unless it was used in conjunction WITH a female condom.

One other thing I wonder is what the cost would be. For so many of the young women in the country who are more likely to be a victim of such rapes I have a feeling a majority of them would be on the lower income side. Also some of them are probably young enough that they are still living at home and not have access to large sums of their own.

Charlatan · 09-01-2005, 06:06 PM

That looks like what I would expect the Dentata to look like (see Redlemon's post #40).

Suave · 09-01-2005, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Just to clear the air...

I can see how you might construe "religious right" to mean "Christian religious right". It was not my intention to make that connection with my poor choice of language. I would include in "wacko religious right" all those who practice an extremely conservative form of religion. As I suggested above words such as "fundamentalist", "orthodoxy", "fringe", "extreme" would have better served. I will attempt to be more careful in my use of language in the future.

I apologize for my carelessness...

I still stand by my statement that a device that would have been surgically inserted into a vagina to prevent rape (or any sexual interference) would be a valuable object to parents who have extreme religious beliefs about the sanctity of their daughters (I believe I have sufficently detailed where I was coming from in this regard).

You've nothing to apologize for. Even if you had been referring specifically to right-wing Christian crazies, it's the same as speaking ill of the extremist Islamic groups that perpetrate violence. It is not bigoted to speak a certain way of persons with distinguishing behavioural characteristics that apply to the statements made about them. It is bigoted to look down upon a group/person simply because they are from that specific group. A very important, and frequently missed, detail.

Martian · 09-02-2005, 02:50 AM

It's reactionism. The hard truth is, this just isn't practical. A woman can't precisely go around wearing this at all times and if she's not wearing it she's vulnerable. Aside from that, it's simply not going to stop these crimes in their tracks. What leads to a device like this is a desire to do something, anything to prevent these atrocities from happening.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just that I don't think it's going to make any changes.

In terms of the mechanics, my understanding is that the device 'latches on' when the man loses his erection, which will happen quite quickly. At that point the barbs have embedded themselves deeply enough that surgical removal is the only method possible, which requires a hospital visit and will lead to apprehension. I suppose it's probably possible to do it yourself, but I don't think I'd be wanting to dig around in my dick with a knife to try to get a bunch of barbs out.

Unfortunately there is no easy answer to the problem, nor is there a 'magic bullet'. This device makes the inventor and the people who read about it feel better and may lead to arrests in a few cases, but that's probably going to be the extent of it. I would love more than anything to be proven wrong here.

The only other issue I really have about it is that it doesn't prevent the crime, as it requires penetration to be effective. If one could devise a method to protect a woman prior to penetration, that would be the better option. The best thing that could be done would be to educate the women in high risk areas on how to protect themselves and offer enough protection and civil defense (ie police) to effectively patrol the dangerous sections of the country. Stiffer punishments would also help, although it's important not to use anything inhumane. If we inflict a cruel punishment on a person, even for a crime of this magnitude, we're really no better than they are. Unfortunately none of this really seems feasible at the moment either.

09-01-2005, 10:04 AM	#44 (permalink)
Supple Cow Americow, the Beautiful Location: Washington, D.C.	The big difference is that trespassers are violating property and rapists are violating persons. It's called self defense. __________________ "I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. Twenty-six times I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed." (Michael Jordan)

09-01-2005, 10:15 AM	#46 (permalink)
mystmarimatt Omnipotent Ruler Of The Tiny Universe In My Mind Location: Oreegawn	There's actually historical precedence for this sort of device. One was made during the...Renaissance, If I remember correctly. Although it was super, super painful for the women to wear, as it was made of, you know, iron. I bet it was pretty clunky. I don't really have an opinion either way on this one. __________________ Words of Wisdom: If you could really get to know someone and know that they weren't lying to you, then you would know the world was real. Because you could agree on things, you could compare notes. That must be why people get married or make Art. So they'll be able to really know something and not go insane.

09-01-2005, 10:18 AM	#47 (permalink)
Sweetpea Fade out Location: in love	Fantastic idea. I hope it truly protects the women who use it. Sweetpea __________________ Having a Pet Will Change Your Life! Looking for a great pet?! Click Here! "I am the Type of Person Who Can Get Away With A lot, Simply Because I Don't Ask Permission for the Privilege of Being Myself"

09-01-2005, 12:05 PM	#55 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Lets hook a homing device on this thing too. Hehe talk about a dilmema for the rapist. Tear it off ya, or get caught __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

09-01-2005, 12:16 PM	#57 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Would it have made you happier if I said... fundamentalist? If so, you can have a, "fundamentalist" free of charge. The point, which you carefully sniped out of my reply, is that there are already wacko religious types who practice similar actions. Call me intolerant if you wish, but if a religion requires the chopping off little girl's labia or clitoris or sewing their vaginas shut it is just plain wrong. Surgically implanting an anti-rape device into a young girl... equally so. Clearly you have already made up your mind that I am a bigot. I will waste no more typing on what I've already established to be a misunderstand about the nature of the device in question. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke Last edited by Charlatan; 09-01-2005 at 12:38 PM..

09-01-2005, 09:25 AM	#42 (permalink)
Randerolf Fireball Location: ~	Is this the same thing as rigging a gun to your door to shoot trespassers? I believe that in such cases in the US, the person harmed can be sued in civil court and maybe criminal court as well.

09-01-2005, 01:28 PM	#62 (permalink)
StanT © Location: Colorado	On another note, the population of South Africa is 23.5 million, of which 4.5 million are caucasion. Is anyone offended that the demonstration phallus is white? Isn't it a bit bigoted to attribute rape to a minority?

09-01-2005, 02:12 PM	#65 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Just to clear the air... I can see how you might construe "religious right" to mean "Christian religious right". It was not my intention to make that connection with my poor choice of language. I would include in "wacko religious right" all those who practice an extremely conservative form of religion. As I suggested above words such as "fundamentalist", "orthodoxy", "fringe", "extreme" would have better served. I will attempt to be more careful in my use of language in the future. I apologize for my carelessness... I still stand by my statement that a device that would have been surgically inserted into a vagina to prevent rape (or any sexual interference) would be a valuable object to parents who have extreme religious beliefs about the sanctity of their daughters (I believe I have sufficently detailed where I was coming from in this regard). __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke Last edited by Charlatan; 09-01-2005 at 02:21 PM..

09-01-2005, 03:11 PM	#66 (permalink)
Seer666 Oh dear God he breeded Location: Arizona	I just want to know, how is she going to take it out without fuckin up her hand? __________________ Bad spellers of the world untie!!! I am the one you warned me of I seem to have misplaced the bullet with your name on it, but I have a whole box addressed to occupant.

09-01-2005, 05:06 PM	#67 (permalink)
raeanna74 I'm not a blonde! I'm knot! I'm knot! I'm knot! Location: Upper Michigan	This Swedish concept seems like a somewhat more feasible method of protection against rape. Yet it would not protect against AIDS unless it was used in conjunction WITH a female condom. One other thing I wonder is what the cost would be. For so many of the young women in the country who are more likely to be a victim of such rapes I have a feeling a majority of them would be on the lower income side. Also some of them are probably young enough that they are still living at home and not have access to large sums of their own. __________________ "Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

09-01-2005, 06:06 PM	#68 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	That looks like what I would expect the Dentata to look like (see Redlemon's post #40). __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-02-2005, 02:50 AM	#70 (permalink)
Martian Young Crumudgeon Location: Canada	It's reactionism. The hard truth is, this just isn't practical. A woman can't precisely go around wearing this at all times and if she's not wearing it she's vulnerable. Aside from that, it's simply not going to stop these crimes in their tracks. What leads to a device like this is a desire to do something, anything to prevent these atrocities from happening. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just that I don't think it's going to make any changes. In terms of the mechanics, my understanding is that the device 'latches on' when the man loses his erection, which will happen quite quickly. At that point the barbs have embedded themselves deeply enough that surgical removal is the only method possible, which requires a hospital visit and will lead to apprehension. I suppose it's probably possible to do it yourself, but I don't think I'd be wanting to dig around in my dick with a knife to try to get a bunch of barbs out. Unfortunately there is no easy answer to the problem, nor is there a 'magic bullet'. This device makes the inventor and the people who read about it feel better and may lead to arrests in a few cases, but that's probably going to be the extent of it. I would love more than anything to be proven wrong here. The only other issue I really have about it is that it doesn't prevent the crime, as it requires penetration to be effective. If one could devise a method to protect a woman prior to penetration, that would be the better option. The best thing that could be done would be to educate the women in high risk areas on how to protect themselves and offer enough protection and civil defense (ie police) to effectively patrol the dangerous sections of the country. Stiffer punishments would also help, although it's important not to use anything inhumane. If we inflict a cruel punishment on a person, even for a crime of this magnitude, we're really no better than they are. Unfortunately none of this really seems feasible at the moment either. __________________ I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said - Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame