South Africa anti-rape condom aims to stop attacks
 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050831/...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg....mjxgYzyl.F_A--

It's a female condom with sharp recurved barbs on the inside, removable from the rapist's penis only by surgery. The inventor says it protects the rape victim from HIV and other diseases, pregnancy, and will send the perpetrator straight to the hospital where he will be immediately identified and arrested.

Is it barbaric or ingenious?

I think it's an interesting idea, a tad inconvenient. What if you forget you have it in and your husband comes home horny and doesn't pay enough attention?

South Africa does have a high rate of HIV and rape both; maybe it will find a market there.

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.

Removable only by surgery? Jesus. The only women who got this would be women who will never have the intent of having sex, ever, with any guy. Otherwise it would be an extreme inconvenience. I do support any acts to prevent rape, however.

-Lasereth

Interesting idea, but I can't help thinking that a rapist will probably take a few minutes to beat the crap out of a woman that was wearing this. Maybe just kill her to eliminate a witness.

if someone went to rape some girl and their dick got all caught up, couldent they still get infected throught vagina?

ROFL THATS GREAT

they might just as well sew the vagina shut instead.... just as effective...


how are they going to attach this to the lady to begin with?

Its only removable from the guy by surgery not the girl...


i've heard of things like this before... if women feel like they need something like this... and they would like this method of defense as opposed to pepper spray or tazers... then they can do it...

Brilliant!

Anything to help stop rapists.

Too bad it doesn't poison them as well...

if you read the articles on it, they tested it on "prosthetic penises" which probably means rubber dildos. So once these things become widespread, what's to stop the rapist from using the dildo first to disarm the trap, and then going on with the rape?

damn now they better spend another 20000 to figure out something new:-P

It sounds like an interesting idea. It would only work, however, if it weren't too expensive for the girls to buy, or too hard to find.
I'm also wondering how the girl would get it out so that she could have consentual sex with her husband or something....does she have to stick something in there to get it out?
And....I'm kind of curious about how hard it would be to put in. I'm just imagining a girl trying to secure her condom inside her and...whoops...her finger slips, and next thing you know, she's the one in the hospital, trying to get the killer condom off her finger.
I'd be terrified to use it again after something like that happened to me once.

I'm not sure if the drop in the spread of AIDS with the widespread use of this condom would be huge though. A lot of the problem with AIDS spreading is also due to whores, drug use and the fact that some people find the use of condoms almost insulting, even if they are aware that there is a risk of HIV/AIDS with unprotected sex.
Either way though, if it curbs the amount of rape that goes on, that would be great. Because even if the rapist ends up beating the girl half to death when something like that does happen....the amount of men who dare to even attempt to rape someone will likely be much smaller when there is a risk that their penis will get ripped to shreds.

...
 

I think it's a great idea as far as preventing rape but, what about the women who will get a hold of this device and use it to "get even" ??? Say, maybe, a cheating husband or boyfriend. How many times will that have to happen before they are pulled off the market?
Also, is it just me or did anyone else think about the fact that there is still the possibility of being sodomized? Say a rapist does get hurt by one of those condoms .. He will heal. Then its time to start going a "different route".
Im not sure how effective these condoms would be.

There's only one word that describes your post:

Bigoted.

Ouch.

Crossing my legs tightly. Examining fingers. Hmm... I like my fingers where they are. Surgical removal only? Holy no-more-digital-masturbation, Batman.

Thats pretty clever.

Why would any of you care if they wore them?

It seems like it should do that. A couple of things really, make it so that it should have to be removed by surgery (Though I don't see how since a knife could cut off a laytex condom and yo ucould slide it out...), then have something on the barbs that irritates the hell out of the skin, makes it itchy, extra sore, or something like that, then if possible have some kind of dye in it that makes the penis a nasty shade of green.

But I'm sure that having that inside of a woman's body would just be potential for something bad to happen.

Edit - And to be extra effective they should have a rather wide insertion I guess that enters the urethra that's just wide enough to cause a lot of pain and basically plug your bladder.

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.

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.

Forcing a kid to wear this is dumb, they could just take it out.

The rapist.. well, I think this has a large chance of making the man VERY angry. He might beat the woman to death... but he might have been planning that anyway.

Maybe the shock will be enough for the woman to get away, who knows.

That is alright I guess. But I still think women should remove one nail and have it replaced with a metal one that looks just like a normal one so that they can tear the throat out of the rapist. Okay that will never happen but rapists don't deserve to live.

what will they think of next? one for the butt i hope, because im sure that the rapers will get smart and go in the back door...

I get the feeling this will turn what otherwise would have been rape into attempted rape and murder more than it'll turning rape into notrape.

Brought to you by the same country who has the "Push-this-button-to-shoot-giant-fireballs-out-the-side-of-your-car-to-stop-would-be-carjackers" device

I remember that thing, the car flamethrower:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/230000...777_car300.jpg

This would be a great idea, but maybe we should make it more easily removable and instead of barbs, maybe like a dye or something.

LMAO Like using a hacksaw to cut THE CLUB off of a steering wheel.

And yeah, two opinions/observations...

1. There's no way it can prevent the spread of disease if it makes the attacker bleed inside the vagina. No way at all. I'd like to see the proof on that one- until then, I will laugh at that idea.

2. Rapists will just start fucking people in the ass, instead. That will cause a lot more damage, still holds the same disease issues... but I guess they'll spin that as a bonus because there won't be a pregnancy.

He said wacko. I think most people are perfectly able to make presumptions about things wackos do without being judged. As far as sneaking in the words "religious right"... for being religious, they're not exactly the most saintly people in the world. If you want to talk about bigots, you'll never find a batch of human beings more willing to pass judgment on those different from them than the extreme "wacko" religious... and that goes for pretty much every religion there is.

If rape is such a high concern there why don't they just increase the punishment? Perhaps removal of the penis of the rapist. This device won't prevent rapes at all, and will only make matters worse (as others have said).

"Don't forget to wear your snatch barbs today, dear!"
"Yes, mum!"

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

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

As far as circumventing the protection, consider the nature of rape. It is not, as far as I know, generally a calculated crime. It is normally (again, to my understanding) a crime of "passion" as they are sometimes called, and so it seems unlikely that a lot of rapists would have the presence of mind to switch things up to avoid this kind of entanglement.

Just like all crimes the rapist will get smart with it and first shove something up the womans vagina(maybe a dildo). When the trap goes off it will attach to the dildo and then they will do what they first planned. And the person may also be pissed off that the woman was equiped with this and may hurt her because of it.

Don't know if I like the idea.

It's actually a huge problem over there. If you're a woman living there odds are you're gonna be raped. Almost guaranteed. Especially if you're a virgin, because many men there believe sex with a virgin cures AIDS.

If I was a virgin over there I would use this. Though I have wondered about how the woman would get it in and out and how it can actually be dangerous for the man and not for the woman. I can see if it is a thicker material than most condoms and completely enclosed it wouldn't be terribly dangerous, HIV-wise to cause the man injury. At the very least - less dangerous for the woman than if he actually managed to rape her.

I would ALSO take me several self-defense classes. If I ever encountered a situation with a rapist and had the chance I would be wrapping my fingernails around his esophagus and ripping with all my might - and I would not be calling for an ambulance for him ASAP. Let him rot.

This is just ONE tool. Don't ever be dependant on a single method of defense.

I think it's absolutely hilarious that yahoo has a picture of a DILDO in their news article, hahaha.

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.

:rolleyes: 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.

First off, like many who first read this thread and didn't read the article the OP makes it seem like the condom cannot be removed from the woman without surgery, rather than from the man's Penis as the article states. This makes a big difference in how one views this article.

To surgically insert a device like this into someone would be just a little twisted. Especially if it was a child.

Correct me if I am wrong but there are many extreme practices in religious circles that attempt to curtail the sexuality of women... The most extreme examples of this are female circumcision and the sewing closed of a woman's vagina. This barbaric practice is performed on children by people who purport to be religious in their intent.

There are many religions and cultures that hold the virginity of women before marriage as someting sacrosanct. It is not a far stretch to imagine that they would see a device such as this, surgically inserted into their daughters as a good thing. A positive thing.

Of course, once you see that it is a device that can be easily removed, the entire wacko factor of the story becomes much less so, in my opinion.

Like raping her ISN'T already hurting her?

I think that something like this is a good idea, because as Suave said : rape is not generally a calculated crime.

The rapist is not, in most cases, going to take the time to think about something like the possibility of a vaginal trap. So he then gets injured and either has to go to the hospital, or lose his penis or life to a resulting infection. And if he goes to the hospital, he's busted for rape and goes to prison.

I have no opinion on this particular device nor on how effective it may (or may not) be.

But I am disturbed by anyone who tells a victim not to fight back because they may be victimized worse if they do.

That is exactly what the rapist says.

The truth is that studies show women who fight back have a greater chance of escaping than those who don't.

So fight, fight tooth and nail, with any and everything you've got.

Frankly, I think it's possible rapists who find their dicks stuck in one of these devices will be a little more concerned about getting themselves extracted from that thing, than taking the time to beat their victim.

I'll also take a wild guess here, and say that it would become more painful with the loss of one's erection, and that erection loss would occur very quickly with such a device.

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.

So it's up to each individual woman. If you feel you are strong enough and skilled enough to fight back against your attacker, you should certainly do so. But if you are relatively weak without any self-defense skills, you should probably not to fight back, but still attempt to verbally "fight back".

I'm surprised the thread has made it to page 2 without mention of the dentata from Snow Crash: "...a very small hypodermic needle slipped imperceptibly into the engorged frontal vein of his penis, automatically shooting a cocktail of powerful narcotics and depressants into his bloodstream.... Now he's going to sleep for at least four hours. And then, boy, is he ever going to be pissed."

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

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...

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

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.


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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Sweetpea

thanks for clarifying. :) i wasn't trying to be bitchy.

Sweetpea

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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?

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:

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.

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.

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).

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

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.

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

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.

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.