Rape (variety: actual, not fun) [Archive]

firebee

02-02-2009, 08:36 PM

Having a second X chromosome is bad.

I'll get right on fixing that.

Dark parking lots are bad.

I rather disfavor small crowded dark parking lots. They are hard to park in, hard to unpark from, and not difficult to hide in.

Sitting in your car for extended periods is bad- balance your checkbook at home.

Also uncomfortable. And I'd venture to say that being in a parking space in a car that is not running, and not having situational awareness, takes away all the advantages that pertain to two tons of fast running, and replaces them with suck.

Being alone in a non-secured place is bad.

It is more of a risk than sitting under my coffee table with my shotgun, but that is a risk that I am willing to take in order to conduct my ordinary business without a chaperone.

No, your car is not a secure location.

But it is the deadliest weapon I own. :D

If it doesn't feel safe, it probably isn't.
Attackers tend to prefer easy targets: Don't be one.

Now we're cooking with charcoal. The Gift of Fear is full of win. One of the extraordinarily important points that deBecker makes is the importance of listening to a properly-tuned sense of fear. This means that you are not arbitrarily in a state of fear merely from the nature of having two X chromosomes, it means that when someone does something unusual that makes you feel uneasy -- like step out behind you or attempt to engage you socially in circumstances where polite people do not engage each other -- you recognize and respect the uneasiness, and you do what it wants. Even if it means being an utter lout to some poor clod.

To the matter of easy targets: The situation for the attacker is fairly finely balanced -- he has limited choice over the grounds, he doesn't know who is around, he has knees... He does not want to deal with someone who appears likely to throw a wrench in his plans. Endeavor to be that person.

Lucid

02-02-2009, 08:46 PM

I've thought about it some.

I think that while I would obviously lose in a fight against a guy; they'd have to think that raping me would have to be worth an eye, a knee cap, a finger or permanent facial scarring.

Barring any of that I'd try to find a way to identify him, report him and submit to a rape kit (both for my safety and health and so they could collect evidence).

If it were someone I knew in the least or could identify somehow they would be better off getting arrested and convicted than having to face my friends or my family. But they'd wait for him to get done with the legal system if they had to.

I've never been raped and hope never to be, so I can't say for sure how I'd feel, but I think that more than anything else I would be overwhelmingly angry.

Rape is a problem I've had to consider from a very early age. I don't really know how to take care of it.

If anything the one I currently have gives me some small sense of security, I'd feel much better if I had one with a blade. I'm a very cautious person so most of the time I take measures to ensure I'm not an easy target.

Most people who try to defend themselves with a knife have it taken from them and used against them; especially if their attacker is larger and more powerful.

The best defense is a good offense! Er... what I mean to say is that the best way to combat an attacker is to avoid putting oneself in situations that make it easier to be attacked in the first place. Although of course it's imposible to be absolutely safe.

Visum

02-02-2009, 08:47 PM

One deterrent for joggers is to put your hair up so that it is not easily used as a handle to control you. People need to understand that the element of surprise will be used against you in an attack. People that have gone through classes to carry concealed weapons are taught that they only have seconds before it doesn't matter if they have a gun. I could be twenty feet away from you and run directly at you. Before you realize and make the decision that I am a threat and then get your weapon out, I will be on top of you. If you can't get to it in time it is worthless and then can be used against you. I am all for concealed weapons, but be proactive and stay out of places that put you at risk.

probity

02-02-2009, 08:48 PM

Since when do you need a license to carry a knife? Have I missed some important step in the decay of my country?

The law may have changed, it's been a while since I've looked it up but when I first went through training with a kubaton I was told a license was needed to carry one with a pointed end. Some obscure reason, I don't remember exactly. I believe it had something to do with the blade being concealed. Knives that don't resemble knives are frowned upon. Another reason I was told is because the purpose of the kubaton is to strike your attacker in the temple repeatedly, one with a blade or point can very easily be lethal if one doesn't know what they're doing.

As I said that law may have changed but that's what I was told several years ago when I first went through training.

mel

02-02-2009, 08:48 PM

I read this article once about a woman who bit off her attacker's bottom lip when he tried to kiss her during the rape.

Although it didn't stop him from raping her, it made it extremely easy to find him though....

Zombicide

02-02-2009, 08:56 PM

I don't know, maybe we should do. . .nothing? Uh, enslave rapists as we should do with all convicts I guess and have them work off their debt to society while learning job skills and good workmanship. . .Oh I know, attractive AIDS (or of a more effective disease) infected women and convincing trannies should be employed to go out and get raped. . .no, that'll never work or maybe it will if they carry some sort of penis killing agent. Or maybe people could just learn to stop over signifying rape. No I'm not joking, I'm just unusually nihilistic today.

Zombicide added to this post, 4 minutes and 37 seconds later...

Oh, of course. But it would take care of repeat rapists, as well as being a significant deterrent.

No, it wouldn't, unfortunately I'm not into rape but if I were a rapist, few things could make me commit a significantly worse offense than having someone foolishly cut my dick off thinking it would be a good deterrent or whatever. I just do worse stuff when people inadvertently do things to exacerbate me without considering the consequences of their actions. You'd be better off keeping them in jail longer instead or issuing them mandatory chemical castration (maybe that's what you meant) for a reduced sentence or whatever.

Maayan

02-02-2009, 08:57 PM

I regret not buying a taser in St. Petersburg. A salesman peddled this unusual article in the subway. My friend Mary, who didn't really speak the language, didn't see past the crazy bum waving a taser around in her face and the trail of angry sparks, and thought that the subway was under terrorist attack.

But seriously, our Grade 9 Self-Defense Against Rape teacher told us to scream and fight tooth and nail; but only when he's not holding a knife against you. Wait for him to put it down; fight back. Repeat.

firebee

02-02-2009, 09:16 PM

I am all for concealed weapons, but be proactive and stay out of places that put you at risk.

Here's my opportunity to shout "Danger Will Robinson!" Do not carry a gun in public unless you are willing to put in the practice necessary to be able to use it. They are particular creatures and dependent on manual dexterity, and in any situation you are likely to encounter in the public space, you are likely to be pwned if you do not know exactly what you are doing. Whether you think it's worth the bother is up to you -- personally, I don't think it is -- but don't fool yourself into thinking that it's a simple point and click interface.

For potential weapons other than guns, YMMV. Knives have the advantage of being quite useful in the course of ordinary business, and for extraordinary business they have the advantage that the part you aren't holding is the pointy end, and that their use is at least somewhat intuitive (the pointy end goes in the other man).

Hobbyist thinking aside, if you think about weapons first you are already horribly backwards. Weapons are unreliable and they leave a mess even in the best of circumstances. If you don't think your situational awareness and planning are sufficient unto the day, improve them or avoid the problematic situation.

ATCGs

02-02-2009, 09:22 PM

I doubt many would-be rapists weigh the pro's an con's of rape. I just can't see someone of the mental state I imagine a rapist would have sitting somewhere and saying "no... I guess I really better not."

Violence (both sexual and not) against women won't ever go away because it isn't always premeditated, and I expect in the cases that it is premeditated, the perpetrator is way beyond caring about the consequences; upping the penalties won't stop it.

I am a firm believer in avoiding bad situations altogether - its better to decrease your odds of being in a situation where you might be raped than to increase your odds of fighting off a rapist.

I'm a fairly big guy, and because all of my ex's have been on the more diminutive side, it's occurred to me, in some of my blacker thoughts, that if I wanted to rape them, they really wouldn't be able to stop me. Strictly off averages, a woman won't be able to fight off a man - the chances just aren't good.

The advice for avoiding bad situations really boils down to common sense: don't walk home alone at 1:30 am in heels on a dark street (hand to god, I saw some frat girl do exactly this last week. I briefly thought about telling her to be more careful, but I though she would have been entirely creeped out and ignore the warning).

Maayan

02-02-2009, 09:38 PM

I'm a fairly big guy, and because all of my ex's have been on the more diminutive side, it's occurred to me, in some of my blacker thoughts, that if I wanted to rape them, they really wouldn't be able to stop me. Strictly off averages, a woman won't be able to fight off a man - the chances just aren't good.

A big dick is easier to kick. (It rhymes, so it must be true!) A woman's first line of defense shouldn't be a grapple. That's silly. She'd have a much better chance stopping her attacker by clawing at his eyes or trachea.

ATCGs

02-02-2009, 09:45 PM

My main point is that if it comes to a physical battle at all, a woman's chances are already in the 'not great' region.

Vagrant

02-02-2009, 09:48 PM

The problem with actually fighting a rapist -- most of them will get the jump on you, and if you try anything, you're probably dead meat. If they don't get the jump on you, or you get far enough away and they don't have a gun, aim for the weak spots -- neck, groin, stomach, eyes, temples.

However, I would expect most rapists to carry a gun. In such a situation, fighting would be fairly likely to result in you dying.

The best thing is to avoid the situation altogether -- don't idle your car for long, don't sit in your car for long, avoid empty parking lots at night, avoid dark alley ways, stay in public with a good amount of light and a fair amount of people around. Don't wear clothes too revealing, and carry pepper spray, that's clearly visible to anybody walking by you.

My main point is that if it comes to a physical battle at all, a woman's chances are already in the 'not great' region.Indeed -- pepper spray is your best bet. With normal weapons, a guy can still fight, even if he gets stabbed. Pepper spray ****ing burns -- it's incapacitating pain.

firebee

02-02-2009, 09:51 PM

A big dick is easier to kick. (It rhymes, so it must be true!) A woman's first line of defense shouldn't be a grapple. That's silly. She'd have a much better chance stopping her attacker by clawing at his eyes or trachea.

Well, her first line of defense, presuming she already is where she is, should be spotting trouble 30 feet off and saying "Hello" to it. Her second line of defense should be keeping trouble 30 feet off, preferably by retreating to a safe or at least advantageous location. Her third line of defense should be not letting herself be grabbed (yes! grappling is exceedingly foolish in this case!). And et cetera et cetera... because clawing for the eyes works; it blinds people. Hitting the trachea works; it kills people. You do not want to do this because although succeeding is better than failing, both will ruin your evening.

ATCGs

02-02-2009, 09:57 PM

firebee

02-02-2009, 10:12 PM

Weapons or devices are probably the surest way of fending off a rapist if avoiding the rapist is a forgone conclusion. Specific techniques such as clawing at their eyes or trying to crush the trachea are really only effective if they are practiced extensively. Technology changed warfare because it allowed relatively untrained people to overcome people with a lifetime of experience and tremendous physical advantage - pepper spray and tasers are probably the best bet.

I am dubious. Weapons require availability and practice -- to a greater or lesser extent depending on the weapon. The common anti-rapist devices seem to have at least some anecdotal evidence behind their use, but I would hardly bank on even remembering you have one unless you exert effort to plan and practice.

And strangely enough, I consider the more effective means of dealing with an actual engaged encounter -- ching ching pao and unarmed martial arts of the unashamedly vicious variety -- to be hobbies. The degree of practice needed to have any assurance of pulling off the techniques (considerable!) is not worth it unless you enjoy the process.

ATCGs

02-02-2009, 10:36 PM

That's my point. In order to be able to use unarmed techniques well, you need to practice them - a lot. An hour a day.

Practice drawing a taser or pepperspray from your purse 5 times in the morning and you'll probably be better off.

firebee

02-02-2009, 10:49 PM

That's my point. In order to be able to use unarmed techniques well, you need to practice them - a lot. An hour a day.
This is an excessive and a insufficient estimate simultaneously. My point is that these are all activities at the margin -- practice what you like, how you like, and in the unlikely event of a loss of cabin pressure use what you have.

Practice drawing a taser or pepperspray from your purse 5 times in the morning and you'll probably be better off.
Haha, it's Kino with slightly less coolness factor. I approve of this product and/or service, although if reduced to that I'd probably do it with a Ruger 22/45 with a Pac-Lite barrel and skate tape on the grips. Not because this would be particularly effective from a self-defense standpoint, but because it would be damn cool.

LionsPride

02-02-2009, 11:47 PM

Well, after all the research I did for the rape fantasy thread, the best and most consistent advice I found was:

*drum roll*

Escape

followed by:

Run

and

Yell (or a combination of those three).

Yes folks, it's not as sexy as carrying mace or a gun or a knife you need a license to carry, but apparently trying to remember where in your purse you're carrying your item of defense did not make the list.

Also, try to remember that most rapes are by people the victim knows. Chances are you aren't gripping your can of mace when your dancing at a party or many other situations that wouldn't score the creepy soundtrack in a movie. Also, your ability with a knife is significantly lessened if you were drinking (which you never do right?) or drugged (which would never happen to you right?).

Look, if carrying something makes you feel less like prey and more in power of your life then great. Go nuts. Just don't think you're safe and that you can boldly walk yourself to the car because you took a self defense course. I'm not saying any of the people who posted would do that, I say it because I genuinely don't want to see people put themselves in danger because they feel secure.

And lastly, just for the record, provocative clothing (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) is the least of your worries. While it does increase your chances of being judged deserving of being raped, it doesn't appear to affect your rapist. According to the stats I saw (minus those from the 70's) your attacker is likely to not even remember what you were wearing and regularly dressed people were more common (from the standpoint that they are a greater percentage of the population).

Deliberator

02-03-2009, 12:01 AM

I've had enough play-grappling experience to know that fighting back tooth and nail would probably only piss him off and make him violent. In that case, besides (1) avoiding those situations, (2) yelling and (3) running, if I get jumped I'd fight just long enough to get lubed up (which does happen automatically, thank goodness) then let him at it to give me time to plot my escape. At that point I'd be worried more about whether or not I'm going to die than whether or not I'm going to get raped.

nacht

02-03-2009, 12:53 AM

Since when do you need a license to carry a knife? Have I missed some important step in the decay of my country?

Depending on the size/type of the blade and the area. In some areas not only can you not carry a knife but you can't get a permit to carry one.

In some places that includes openly as well as hidden.

That's in the US, we're not even going to talk about, say, Japan.

Weapons or devices are probably the surest way of fending off a rapist if avoiding the rapist is a forgone conclusion. Specific techniques such as clawing at their eyes or trying to crush the trachea are really only effective if they are practiced extensively. Technology changed warfare because it allowed relatively untrained people to overcome people with a lifetime of experience and tremendous physical advantage - pepper spray and tasers are probably the best bet.

I have specific training in how to use a knife (tantojutsu (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)), study a self defense martial art, and I have handled a gun and talked extensively with a former self defense instructor who taught ladies self defense courses with both knives and guns.

Using a knife or a gun is only effective if practiced extensively. Period.

Once you draw a gun you are committed (and possibly going to suffer 3rd degree assault charges). Self defense laws in most jurisdictions don't even allow you to use a weapon as a first line of defense, you must first attempt to run away (I happen to believe in jury nullification of that particular law, but YMMV).

Thus, if you use one, you might still be charged with a crime and you might even be guilty of said crime(s), even if you don't actually manage to successfully defend yourself. This last point being a distinct possibility.

My instructor used to say that in the heat of the moment the average person could not hit a moving target 7 feet away from them. Not to mention that (guns especially) take continuous practice, and kept the way most people who would carry them for self defense would keep them would require constant mindfulness of their location and condition (this is why I like revolvers: very little in them that can go wrong or get gummed up).

Meanwhile guns get taken away from police on a regular basis. Never mind some poor person who can barely keep the gun steady and has fired it once or twice.

Knives also require extensive practice to use effectively--especially against someone who is likewise armed--and are basically useless in combat unless they are razor sharp.

The simple truth is that your best block is to not be where the punch is, and that if they get close enough to confront you then you have already screwed up.

Self defense lessons--not a weekend course or gun training, but true situational self defense lessons--help with one major major thing in all of this: keeping your head. Keeping your head in these situations can be the difference between life and death, because it allows you to respond appropriately. Sure, you might not be able to gouge their eyes out, but you have:

1) Increased confidence in yourself, which makes it less likely you will become a victim
2) Increased situational awareness.
3) Enough mindfulness not to panic, and thus a higher percentage probability of being able to make it out alive.

This all even applies to pepper spray and tasers. Tasers won't go through a good leather jacket, and pepper spray requires that it get used and that its pointing in the right direction. Again, situational awareness and keeping your calm matter more than any weapons you happen to have at your disposal. "Kicking them in the crotch" may seem like a fun idea, but the truth is that some rapists wear cups and--more importantly--if you have been kicked in the groin there is a delayed pain response. You have to keep moving while the blood is hot, and render your opponent senseless before you cool off enough for the pain to kick in.

The really bad thing? When you've been kicked, you know it.

Lovepuss

02-03-2009, 03:55 AM

For real women out there.... they shd give this a real thought and try.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Jaap Haumann

An early prototypical anti-rape female tampon was invented in late 2000 by Jaap Haumann, a South African man, for the purpose of preventing rape[1]. Haumann's device was designed to resemble a tampon for ease of insertion, and consisted of a hard cylindrical plastic core containing a tensioned spring blade primed to slice when pressed against by the tip of a penis. Following activation, a portion of the tip of the penis would be removed, in effect performing a minor penectomy.

[edit] Rape-aXe

More recently, an anti-rape female condom using a different design was invented by Sonette Ehlers[2], a South African woman also for the purpose of preventing rape. Ehler was motivated to create it while working as a blood technician with the South African Blood Transfusion Service, during which time she met and treated 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 device, known as 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, their penis would enter the latex sheath and be snagged by the barbs, causing the attacker excruciating pain during withdrawal and (ideally) 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. This device could assist in the identification and prosecution of rapists. Like most condoms, Rape-aXe also usually prevents pregnancy and the transmission of HIV and sexually transmitted diseases.

Rape-aXe was unveiled on August 31, 2005 in South Africa. Mass production was scheduled to begin in April 2007.[3] File:Ouch.jpg

[edit] Background

The concept of a vagina dentata is rooted in ancient myth, and had previously been explored in fiction, e.g. in Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson[4],in the 2007 film Teeth, directed by Mitchell Lichtenstein and also in the Science Fantasy series The Pliocene Exiles written by Julian May.

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." This comment may have been a reference to the myth.[5]

Trust me, after this, raping u would be the last thing on his mind .... :D

getonwithit

02-03-2009, 09:21 AM

not entirely sure why we needed another thread on this topic but... when we talk about avoiding bad situations, not looking like a victim, carrying a weapon, ect. we are forgetting a major population of rape victims... don't forget the daters, and by this, I dont mean the one's who are actually go on the date, but how about the one's with male friends whom they trust. Really, if you 're out with the friends are you really thinking about taking your drink to the bathroom, having mace in the purse, being locked & loaded? There is a large group of rapists who prey on friends. What are women suppose to do after they're drugged or blindly led into a situation with a friend who they trusted. Oh wait, as an INTJ we're suppose to know who not to trust aren't we? Or better yet, we don't have any friends :) Just a thought.

Chain

02-03-2009, 09:38 AM

I'll get right on fixing that.

It was a statement about women needing to be more careful. How often do men get raped or sexually assualted?

I rather disfavor small crowded dark parking lots. They are hard to park in, hard to unpark from, and not difficult to hide in.

Also uncomfortable. And I'd venture to say that being in a parking space in a car that is not running, and not having situational awareness, takes away all the advantages that pertain to two tons of fast running, and replaces them with suck.

Exactly. Not to mention, they now also have access to easy get to somewhere else.

It is more of a risk than sitting under my coffee table with my shotgun, but that is a risk that I am willing to take in order to conduct my ordinary business without a chaperone.

Sometimes you don't have a choice. Most times you don't really need to go to the Post Office at 2 AM.

But it is the deadliest weapon I own. :D

LOL

Now we're cooking with charcoal. The Gift of Fear is full of win. One of the extraordinarily important points that deBecker makes is the importance of listening to a properly-tuned sense of fear. This means that you are not arbitrarily in a state of fear merely from the nature of having two X chromosomes, it means that when someone does something unusual that makes you feel uneasy -- like step out behind you or attempt to engage you socially in circumstances where polite people do not engage each other -- you recognize and respect the uneasiness, and you do what it wants. Even if it means being an utter lout to some poor clod.

To the matter of easy targets: The situation for the attacker is fairly finely balanced -- he has limited choice over the grounds, he doesn't know who is around, he has knees... He does not want to deal with someone who appears likely to throw a wrench in his plans. Endeavor to be that person.

Pretty much.

One deterrent for joggers is to put your hair up so that it is not easily used as a handle to control you. People need to understand that the element of surprise will be used against you in an attack. People that have gone through classes to carry concealed weapons are taught that they only have seconds before it doesn't matter if they have a gun. I could be twenty feet away from you and run directly at you. Before you realize and make the decision that I am a threat and then get your weapon out, I will be on top of you. If you can't get to it in time it is worthless and then can be used against you. I am all for concealed weapons, but be proactive and stay out of places that put you at risk.

Their have been numerous studies about firearms at close range. In one, one of the NW states (Washington, I believe) did a study that found un-trained runners can close a gap of 20 yards before a trained officer can pull, aim and fire half-accurately.

In another a police department put a guy in a warehouse with knife and then sent in their trainees- one at a time. Out of the 20 or so trainees, only one would have lived.

I'll have to look for the links later.

The law may have changed, it's been a while since I've looked it up but when I first went through training with a kubaton I was told a license was needed to carry one with a pointed end. Some obscure reason, I don't remember exactly. I believe it had something to do with the blade being concealed. Knives that don't resemble knives are frowned upon. Another reason I was told is because the purpose of the kubaton is to strike your attacker in the temple repeatedly, one with a blade or point can very easily be lethal if one doesn't know what they're doing.

As I said that law may have changed but that's what I was told several years ago when I first went through training.

I don't know of a state that has a law against fixed blades under 3 inches.

The problem with actually fighting a rapist -- most of them will get the jump on you, and if you try anything, you're probably dead meat. If they don't get the jump on you, or you get far enough away and they don't have a gun, aim for the weak spots -- neck, groin, stomach, eyes, temples.

However, I would expect most rapists to carry a gun. In such a situation, fighting would be fairly likely to result in you dying.

The best thing is to avoid the situation altogether -- don't idle your car for long, don't sit in your car for long, avoid empty parking lots at night, avoid dark alley ways, stay in public with a good amount of light and a fair amount of people around. Don't wear clothes too revealing, and carry pepper spray, that's clearly visible to anybody walking by you.

Indeed -- pepper spray is your best bet. With normal weapons, a guy can still fight, even if he gets stabbed. Pepper spray ****ing burns -- it's incapacitating pain.

Unlikely they would. The point of fighting back isn't to defend yourself, but to draw attention and make the act take longer. More time means a higher probability of rescue, or that the attacker will disengage. They're ansty; they don't want to get caught.

firebee

02-03-2009, 10:11 AM

It was a statement about women needing to be more careful. How often do men get raped or sexually assualted?
To be blunt, that sounds like a useful suggestion unless you are a woman.

Sometimes you don't have a choice. Most times you don't really need to go to the Post Office at 2 AM.

Or home from work at 6, or to the grocery store at 7, or traveling between cities at all... This is a bit of an issue for me for reasons unrelated to you; I've recently had quite a run of being alternatingly told that I need to dress attractively because "it's important" and being told that I should enlist the services of my ex-boyfriend as a chaperone because I'm "too pretty".

I don't know of a state that has a law against fixed blades under 3 inches.

Then I think it's likely you haven't looked. That's okay, I haven't either. :D But IIRC some states have problems with fixed blades at all, full stop (Kansas, for instance, might be one of those), and there are a couple states that have an absurdly low length limit. Also, some state laws have been taken to outlaw anything carried with the intent to be used as a weapon -- meaning that if you say "This is for protection" you can get pwned. Plus one has to consider cities and other odd areas like universities and the like.

Unlikely they would. The point of fighting back isn't to defend yourself, but to draw attention and make the act take longer. More time means a higher probability of rescue, or that the attacker will disengage. They're ansty; they don't want to get caught.

Win. Getting into a fight with a determined woman in a public space might well be ultimately winnable, but it is still seven kinds of dangerous.

firebee added to this post, 4 minutes and 27 seconds later...

For real women out there.... they shd give this a real thought and try.

/me cracks knuckles.

Here we have perhaps the ultimate example of a single-purpose device causing hassle and inconvenience in return for highly dubious utility in an uncommon situation. And just what do you mean by "real women", son? :D

I've got better things to do with my bits than use them to carry pointies in.

(lord, the hilarity may kill me...)

Outdoorwhale

02-03-2009, 10:51 AM

One of the most common misconceptions about rape is who does it.

A woman will be most likely raped by a man she already knows. It could be the guy you've known for years or the guy you met just a few weeks ago. Violent/stranger rape gets more press and is talked about more for a variety of reasons. Mostly revolving around the notion of "she shouldn't have been flirting with her friend/mixed signals" and its easier to prove and prosecute. Plus the way its done leaves effects of maybe it was her fault(like getting her drunk, signals, medicated without her knowledge or intimidation). Since most people are not mind readers and it happens so often its understood that it was planned the entire time by the man. The only difference between them and strangers is that they are smart enough to try and control mentally as well. "Nice guys" are no better than jerks.

The second greatest misconception is stranger rape will happen most often in her own home. He may see you else where or be a neighbor and wait. He may wait a day/two or until the night when he can't be seen. That way he can control the situation and know the players. He knows its wrong and could be killed/hurt and smart criminals are rarely caught. And the problem here these criminals don't just come right at you. They enter while she is not home and hide in closets or unlock and window and leave(even while she is home) for easy access. Then waits for her to fall asleep or shower since that is the most vulnerable time. The gun/knife may be close but it's already to late. And when its over you don't know anything so there isn't anything to tell. The police can't catch a person with a basic race and height. Since he will probably be masked and gloved. And these men may kill you afterwards.

As for the street situation. He'll most likely come up from behind using the cars as cover, grab your hair to pull your head back or choke her with her own hair/ponytail. With a knife to the throat or being knock out. You won't have time to draw the gun or get the knife. If anything he'll take it and use it against you.

I've had so many classes on this.....

As for firearms/knives.

Most people are bad shots. The police, who have much, much more training than the average CCW person, still maybe connect 2-3 times from a 15rd magazine past 10ft. The most common problem is people focus on the target and not the front post of the gun.

Knives are just as hazardous to the user and not very effective. Unless its a fighting knife(ka-bar, Eickhorn, Stryder) you are looking at a 3-4 in. blade with non-fighting grade steel and sharpness. So a stabbing motion may break the blade and a single strike won't do enough damage or cut deep enough. A trained person may be able to but in the moment with both people moving its near impossible.

lamplighter

02-03-2009, 11:15 AM

Most people who try to defend themselves with a knife have it taken from them and used against them; especially if their attacker is larger and more powerful.

The best defense is a good offense! Er... what I mean to say is that the best way to combat an attacker is to avoid putting oneself in situations that make it easier to be attacked in the first place. Although of course it's imposible to be absolutely safe.
No one's tried to rape me (guess I'm not cute enough), although I have been attacked a couple of times in the great city of St. Petersburg, I did use a knife to defend myself and it was quite effective. The thing about using any weapon to defend yourself is that you need to know how to use it, and you can't brandish a weapon and be afraid to use it, that's how people get disarmed in the first place.

Chain

02-03-2009, 11:15 AM

To be blunt, that sounds like a useful suggestion unless you are a woman.

Unless you're a man, saying "use a shorter bicycle so that you don't rack your nuts on the bar" is just a suggestion. It's not like it happens all the time or anything.

Or home from work at 6, or to the grocery store at 7, or traveling between cities at all... This is a bit of an issue for me for reasons unrelated to you; I've recently had quite a run of being alternatingly told that I need to dress attractively because "it's important" and being told that I should enlist the services of my ex-boyfriend as a chaperone because I'm "too pretty".

WTH kinda reasoning is that? What grocery store parking lot is vacant at 7 PM?

Then I think it's likely you haven't looked. That's okay, I haven't either. :D But IIRC some states have problems with fixed blades at all, full stop (Kansas, for instance, might be one of those), and there are a couple states that have an absurdly low length limit. Also, some state laws have been taken to outlaw anything carried with the intent to be used as a weapon -- meaning that if you say "This is for protection" you can get pwned. Plus one has to consider cities and other odd areas like universities and the like.

I was raised camping, fishing, boating, hunting... I don't go anywhere without a knife. It's a very useful tool.

I also have family in a quite a few different states. I've looked up the laws in those states, plus the states I have to drive through. So far, I haven't found any restrictions for fixed blades under 3".

dalidaisy

02-03-2009, 12:17 PM

lamplighter

02-03-2009, 12:43 PM

What about if you are raped by someone you know & trust? No one has yet addressed this. Sometimes there's no way to see it coming & with someone you trust, you may not be prepared with weapons or pepper spray. This seems like it could be a far worse situation in some ways than being raped by a stranger.

Also, what if it's date rape? What if someone puts something in your drink & you find yourself in a situation where you are unable to adequately determine the situation & fight back?

Thoughts on these?
I don't think anyone can be prepared for those kinds of situations when they happen, the only thing you can really do is just try to be the best judge of character as possible. I know some of those people put on an act to get you in a vulnerable position to begin with, but try to be critical with who you trust, and subject them to people you already trust to see if they have anything to say about the person, because they may notice something you don't.

firebee

02-03-2009, 01:21 PM

Unless you're a man, saying "use a shorter bicycle so that you don't rack your nuts on the bar" is just a suggestion. It's not like it happens all the time or anything.

I won't presume to tell you anything about the management of your nuts, because I would find having nuts fairly unusual whereas I presume you're used to the concept.

My point is this: People should not be oblivious to their surroundings, regardless of their gender. People should avoid situations that look skwerly, regardless of their gender. People should do everything possible to keep from going toe to toe with another person who wishes ill of them, regardless of their gender. Telling me that I'm a woman tells me nothing new and nothing useful.

WTH kinda reasoning is that? What grocery store parking lot is vacant at 7 PM?

I beg your pardon? This concerns my state of irk regarding advice I've been given elsewhere. At 7PM it is generally dark where I live, and I not uncommonly hear the advice that I should either not go out after dark or have vague non-actionable guilt and anxiety about doing so.

Now, as to the question about dates and acquaintances and such like... Actually, I think that's a crucial point. It's all very well to go round and round about arbitrary creeps that you can shoot, shovel, and shut up about, but what do you do if it's a coworker?

Chain

02-03-2009, 01:47 PM

What about if you are raped by someone you know & trust? No one has yet addressed this. Sometimes there's no way to see it coming & with someone you trust, you may not be prepared with weapons or pepper spray. This seems like it could be a far worse situation in some ways than being raped by a stranger.

Also, what if it's date rape? What if someone puts something in your drink & you find yourself in a situation where you are unable to adequately determine the situation & fight back?

Thoughts on these?

As to the first, other than what's already been said about trying to get attention and/or get away, I don't know what to tell you. I don't advocate that weapons solve everything; for quite a few reasons.

Some of those reasons are why I laugh when people say, "hit them in the throat." There's a low probability that a trained person could hit someone in a target that small and easily guarded in a panic situation. The odds of someone that's not trained?

As to the second situation, there's nothing you can do. It's hard to make a decision when you aren't conscious. This is why you don't go out alone, take drinks that people hand you or leave your drink unattended.

karenk

02-03-2009, 01:53 PM

I heard a police officer say that statistically most rapes (by strangers) occur in this scenario. A woman is home alone in the morning and the rapist can see her in a window. He watches outside before entering and raping her. The reason it happens most often in the morning is because testosterone levels are highest at this time of day. Statistically most rapes don't happen most often at night when a women is out alone. That's a myth. We only find that so easy to believe because it plays on fears of the unknown, the dark, etc.. Also, I believe that myth exists to limit women's freedom.

Chain

02-03-2009, 01:55 PM

I won't presume to tell you anything about the management of your nuts, because I would find having nuts fairly unusual whereas I presume you're used to the concept.

My point is this: People should not be oblivious to their surroundings, regardless of their gender. People should avoid situations that look skwerly, regardless of their gender. People should do everything possible to keep from going toe to toe with another person who wishes ill of them, regardless of their gender. Telling me that I'm a woman tells me nothing new and nothing useful.

OK, lets just throw out all the statics based on gender: Rapes, muggings, other violent crimes, prostate cancer.... it's all useless. One gender has nothing more to worry about than the other.

I beg your pardon? This concerns my state of irk regarding advice I've been given elsewhere. At 7PM it is generally dark where I live, and I not uncommonly hear the advice that I should either not go out after dark or have vague non-actionable guilt and anxiety about doing so.

There's a difference between "dark" and "dark and empty."

nacht

02-03-2009, 01:59 PM

Some of those reasons are why I laugh when people say, "hit them in the throat." There's a low probability that a trained person could hit someone in a target that small and easily guarded in a panic situation. The odds of someone that's not trained?

Hence the most important rules of all.

- The best block is to not be where the punch is. To keep your situational awareness up and respond to it when it is 30' away, not 2' away. Don't get drunk enough that you cannot resist (much more common than date rape drugs, are date rape when both parties are drunk).

- Don't panic (in large, friendly letters).

Simple as that.

Everything else is just window dressing or preparing for low margin possibilities (or simply bad ideas, for example carrying a gun when you don't train regularly with it or carrying a knife without training regularly with it or being aware of the local knife laws).

At the same time, it bears remembering that these sorts of things are rare and dependent on the area you live in. Walking in New Orleans at 3AM I have a lot more to worry about than my current location, where I mostly have to worry about coyotes (and if a coyote wants to rape me something has gone horribly wrong).

dalidaisy

02-03-2009, 02:09 PM

How many people in this forum have ever been involved in or actually seen a rape occur? I've noticed that people have a lot to say about the subject, but I'm curious how many people have practical experience when dealing with a rapist. Or, were you possibly the rapist (don't want to leave anyone out)?

nacht

02-03-2009, 03:10 PM

OK, lets just throw out all the statics based on gender: Rapes, muggings, other violent crimes, prostate cancer.... it's all useless. One gender has nothing more to worry about than the other.

Let's throw out some interesting statistics (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

60% of sexual assaults are not reported to the police.

73% of sexual assault victims know their assailants.

28% of the time the rapist is already intimate.

Over 50% of all rape and sexual assault incidents were reported by the victims to have happened within 1 mile of their home.

The vast majority of rapes take place either in the victim's own home or in the home of a friend, neighbor, or relative.

So yes, next on "true but totally irrelevant tales," women are more likely to get raped than men. This isn't important.

What is important is that we are dealing with a low margin game for most people, and that there's nothing magical about being male that protects you from violent crime. In fact, men are more likely to be victims of violent crime than women (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), even once you include rape.

In fact, among males ages 20-24 (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) Assault (homicide) is the 2nd leading cause of death. Among 25-34 year olds its the 3rd. Among 20-24 year olds we similar numbers for women... but not among 25-34 year olds, where diseases of the heart cause more deaths.

So self defense isn't only about rape, and the rules that firebee is talking about--being alert, being cautious--don't simply apply to women but to everyone to avoid being a victim of a violent crime.

Hatsumomo1

02-03-2009, 03:15 PM

What about if you are raped by someone you know & trust? No one has yet addressed this. Sometimes there's no way to see it coming & with someone you trust, you may not be prepared with weapons or pepper spray. This seems like it could be a far worse situation in some ways than being raped by a stranger.

Also, what if it's date rape? What if someone puts something in your drink & you find yourself in a situation where you are unable to adequately determine the situation & fight back?

Thoughts on these?

The best advice ever is to WATCH YOUR DRINK. If some guy you only sorta know offers to get you something, make sure it goes straight from the bartender to you. And do not leave it unattended whatever you do. Also, if you're afraid that you might be distracted and that guy or someone else will come along and slip the date rape drug in your drink, cover the top of glass or bottle. You might look a little weird, but it sure beats getting raped while you're half conscious.

nacht

02-03-2009, 03:25 PM

The best advice ever is to WATCH YOUR DRINK. If some guy you only sorta know offers to get you something, make sure it goes straight from the bartender to you. And do not leave it unattended whatever you do. Also, if you're afraid that you might be distracted and that guy or someone else will come along and slip the date rape drug in your drink, cover the top of glass or bottle. You might look a little weird, but it sure beats getting raped while you're half conscious.

Good advice, but not "the best advice ever."

Date rape drugs are actually rare, date rape frequently involves getting too drunk/high to be able to give consent or to provide even minimal resistance or situational awareness.

Unfortunately, statistics are skewed on the use of GHB, because IIRC your body can produce similar chemicals which are detectable in urine and can leave false positives if you've been using any other kind of drug. Suffice it to say though: date rape very rarely involves "date rape drugs" and more often is someone you trust in a situation where you have put yourself in a situation of being unable to give consent.

dalidaisy

02-03-2009, 03:41 PM

What I'm talking about is more domestic violence & rape. Like possibly with a friend or family member, teacher or priest. You know, someone you trust or respect who uses it to take advantage of you. I've found that I know more of these types of rape than the backalley or parking lot rape scenarios that have been described. But, I do live in a small town.

Supposedly, Over 80% of rape victims know their attackers. As children we are warned not to talk to strangers. The fact is you are more likely to be assaulted by someone you know: a friend, date, ex-boyfriend, classmate, neighbor, relative or employer.

There's also date rape, which often occurs as a result of misunderstood sex role behaviors and/or communication styles. Males who regard sex as "scoring" and are sexually aggressive often believe "no" can be changed to "yes" with a little more persuasion or force. Females frequently say "no" too softly or indirectly because they don't want to hurt feelings or jeopardize a relationship.

Then, there is domestic violence done by a significant other. Partner rape is real rape. It may happen once or many times. It may involve coercive pressure or battery and torture. It happens in very violent relationships, or in those that are otherwise respectful. Some men honestly do not see forced or coerced sex on their partners as rape. This is often due to socialization about being "entitled" to sex with a partner, or like many other people, seeing a "real" rapist as the stranger in the alleyway. But this doesn't mean you have to buy into that view - it is not okay for you to be harmed because your partner has been socialized a certain way.

I know quite a few women who have been victims to these types of rape. Anyone else?

Anreader

02-03-2009, 04:47 PM

I know someone who was molested by her step-father, but it wasn't exactly rape. No one has ever told me that they were raped by a stranger.

I think that a woman could win a fight with a man if she was willing to be especially viscious and could catch the man unaware. I don't think weapons would be a terrific ammount of help after the onset of attack. You might be able to threaten the violator into choosing a different victim, before he commits to you as his target, if you have a weapon.

firebee

02-03-2009, 05:20 PM

OK, lets just throw out all the statics based on gender: Rapes, muggings, other violent crimes, prostate cancer.... it's all useless. One gender has nothing more to worry about than the other.

Admittedly, we are talking here about "rape", which is the more common endpoint of failure-to-defend-self in women. However, it strikes me as foolish to accept the possibility of being shot or stabbed or having your brains dashed in because you're unlikely to get raped after you're dead.

Let me give you two scenarios:

A person leaves a business and goes to their car in a parking lot after dark. They find two people standing between them and the car, acting strangely. They talk with these people from a fair distance, and when the people do not leave, the person returns to the business they came from and calls the police.

A person leaves a business and goes to their car in a parking lot after dark. They find two people standing between them in the car, acting strangely. They continue on to their car, not paying much attention to these people. They are now flanked by two people who are within killing distance and armed.

Do you need to know the gender, to know who is in a better situation?

There's a difference between "dark" and "dark and empty."

In an empty parking lot there is no one there. If nacht gets raped by a coyote I'll worry :D

Understand that although you have not said such, some people take the approach that women, but not men, should substantially limit their ordinary business for fear of being a victim of crime. This is part of why I say "it sounds like good advice if you are not a woman", because it is easy to determine if something seems like a reasonable restriction for someone else.

"If there’s to be a curfew, let the men stay at home, not the women." -- Golda Meir

Visum

02-03-2009, 05:55 PM

Their have been numerous studies about firearms at close range. In one, one of the NW states (Washington, I believe) did a study that found un-trained runners can close a gap of 20 yards before a trained officer can pull, aim and fire half-accurately.

In another a police department put a guy in a warehouse with knife and then sent in their trainees- one at a time. Out of the 20 or so trainees, only one would have lived.

I'll have to look for the links later.

Yes, this was my point exactly, thanks for providing some case studies.

Lovepuss

02-04-2009, 01:19 AM

/me cracks knuckles.

Here we have perhaps the ultimate example of a single-purpose device causing hassle and inconvenience in return for highly dubious utility in an uncommon situation. And just what do you mean by "real women", son? :D

I've got better things to do with my bits than use them to carry pointies in.

(lord, the hilarity may kill me...)

heh, maybe u doubt the effectiveness of the anti-rape weapon in question. Let some of the facts convince u :

FAQ : To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Images : To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I would not mind to be wearing this "tampon" in me. All I need is to have a rapist place his sexual organ in me once to never have the peace of mind to EVER do it again to me or another woman. Not many men fancy surgeries to remove this anti-rape weapon.

Don't forget, unlike a tampon, this anti-rape weapon needs to be removed with an applicator, not pulled out by string as tampons usually r. It slices into the applicator and attaches itself to it to be removed harmlessly from a woman's vagina >>> that's how it is removed harmlessly. That shd remind u how "effective" it is :D

The reference to "real women" ... is that for the hoohaa over self-defence and all to elaborate practices to prevent and defend against rapists, this is the only effective and real practical weapon against them. Only women who know how vulnerable they r sexually, will know this weapon really will even those odds against men who have the sexual and physical advantage. Like they said... it is a medieval weapon for a medieval crime... when men refuse to learn not to rape women. This will teach those rapists to never rape again.

nacht

02-04-2009, 02:02 AM

heh, maybe u doubt the effectiveness of the anti-rape weapon in question. Let some of the facts convince u :

FAQ : To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Images : To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I would not mind to be wearing this "tampon" in me. All I need is to have a rapist place his sexual organ in me once to never have the peace of mind to EVER do it again to me or another woman. Not many men fancy surgeries to remove this anti-rape weapon.

Don't forget, unlike a tampon, this anti-rape weapon needs to be removed with an applicator, not pulled out by string as tampons usually r. It slices into the applicator and attaches itself to it to be removed harmlessly from a woman's vagina >>> that's how it is removed harmlessly. That shd remind u how "effective" it is :D

The reference to "real women" ... is that for the hoohaa over self-defence and all to elaborate practices to prevent and defend against rapists, this is the only effective and real practical weapon against them. Only women who know how vulnerable they r sexually, will know this weapon really will even those odds against men who have the sexual and physical advantage. Like they said... it is a medieval weapon for a medieval crime... when men refuse to learn not to rape women. This will teach those rapists to never rape again.

As an aside before addressing this: citing the manufacturer of a product on a product's usefulness is rarely convincing.

The "anti rape condoms" were designed for use in South Africa, where rape by strangers is substantially more of an issue and HIV is a huge concern. It's usefulness in these circumstances is more debatable.

In the US it's a gregariously stupid idea for several reasons.

1) The probability of a rape is a low probability event, especially under circumstances where you would be wearing such a device and the rapist wouldn't be capable of checking for it.

2) The rapist can, in fact, check for it before raping you. It presumes a stupid rapist. Do you really want to encourage rapists to test for these things with inanimate objects first?

Not to mention I just can't figure out how this would be any more difficult to detect than an IUD ("wire check").

3) It is meant to guard against a specific form of rape which, in the US, is not the most common form or even the second most common form. It also won't protect against the most violent "rapists," who won't exactly feel the need to use their dick to rape the woman. It only protects against a certain middle ground--people you aren't already intimate with (if it is someone you are intimate with and you use such a device for retribution, it is a crime and should be treated as such), who aren't going to become enraged and inflict worse damage before running off, who aren't in a gang, who are around in situations where you are likely to be wearing it (which is to say, not around the house in all likelihood), who are going to use their dick as their weapon of choice for the rape, who are in enough of a rush or are sufficiently stupid not to check for that sort of thing... and what you have an extremely low margin game for something that raises your risk of yeast infections while simultaneously increasing your risk in certain circumstances.

4) There is no poison, no toxin, in the device to incapacitate. Nothing to keep them from beating you to a pulp upon discovery of the device, which may very well not be with his dick. If you were likely to walk away alive and--outside of the rape itself--unscathed (which is the most likely scenario in the US, again) then what you have just done is made the situation more volatile and increased your risk of serious injury.

The answer is intelligence, situational awareness, and rational risk assessment. Not vigilantism or this vindictive and emotional sense of backwards "justice."

Understanding risk is about understanding probabilities, not knee-jerk reactions.

Further reading (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), which states:

OK, whatever. Ethics and discomfort aside, there's a more menacing problem with the device. The only effective defense is one that disables an attacker, and the rat trap doesn't. In fact, it increases the chances of a rapist beating his victim to a pulp -- or worse -- when he discovers the cunning little device attached to his member. What, for that matter, prevents the attacker from searching for the device and triggering it before rape?

There's another catch. A recent analysis of 162 rapes in Johannesburg's inner city found that one in four had been a gang rape. So. The first guy gets the bite, his co-conspirators laugh, and business goes on as usual. How does this help the victim?

Lovepuss

02-04-2009, 03:32 AM

As an aside before addressing this: citing the manufacturer of a product on a product's usefulness is rarely convincing.

heh, why is it any less effective? Google it to see it being raved by many women around.

The "anti rape condoms" were designed for use in South Africa, where rape by strangers is substantially more of an issue and HIV is a huge concern. It's usefulness in these circumstances is more debatable.

Why is its effectiveness debatable? Would where the rape occur affect its effectiveness? Rape is rape as it is carried out by any male on a female where penetration has occurred.

In the US it's a gregariously stupid idea for several reasons.

1) The probability of a rape is a low probability event, especially under circumstances where you would be wearing such a device and the rapist wouldn't be capable of checking for it.

Again, more objections due to ignorance rather than actually assimilating the information thoroughly.

same link I gave to u : FAQ : To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Is it possible for a rapist to see if a woman is wearing RAPEX?

Absolutely not! It fits behind the labia and has no strings or anything protruding.

2) The rapist can, in fact, check for it before raping you.

He can't.

It presumes a stupid rapist. Do you really want to encourage rapists to test for these things with inanimate objects first?

If he is knowledgeable enuff to actually try it. Chances r, in a dark place and in a hurry, he won't.

Not to mention I just can't figure out how this would be any more difficult to detect than an IUD ("wire check")
.

An IUD is inserted within the cervix. Male sex partners can feel the strings of an IUD but they have to penerate u 1st.

The problem with this anti-rape weapon is they r caught the second they ever penetrate u and it is not visible to the rapist from the outside.

3) It is meant to guard against a specific form of rape which, in the US, is not the most common form or even the second most common form. It also won't protect against the most violent "rapists," who won't exactly feel the need to use their dick to rape the woman. It only protects against a certain middle ground--people you aren't already intimate with

Rape is technically penetration of the victim's vagina with a male penis. If there is no penetration, there isn't any rape.

(if it is someone you are intimate with and you use such a device for retribution, it is a crime and should be treated as such)

U mean u r arguing the case of a rapist? For his rights? I think for a man to violate a woman's rights and modesty and rapes her forcibly... it is absolutely right to remove his rights. The minute u rape a woman it is a crime whereby u have already given up yr rights and have to bear all the subsequent consequences.

who aren't going to become enraged and inflict worse damage before running off

I shd think the rapist would be more concerned with stopping blood flow and getting immediate medical attention b4 he loses his penis and life, but that's just me. Hey, being hit isn't as bad as not being raped now that the desire has totally vacated the rapist's mind.

who aren't in a gang

True. But they would be having more fear against a woman who has successfully prevented rape and inflicted harm on the rapist simultaneously.

who are around in situations where you are likely to be wearing it (which is to say, not around the house in all likelihood)

U can wear it all the time, just remove it when u know u have to penetrate yr own vagina. Say yr husband wants to make love to u. What's the problem? Is inserting a tampon and removing it very difficult? This anti-rape weapon does not even cost a lot more than a normal condom.

who are going to use their dick as their weapon of choice for the rape, who are in enough of a rush or are sufficiently stupid not to check for that sort of thing...

Lots of rapists do... like I said.... not many r aware of this anti-rape weapon and from how it looks like from the outside to a rapist, there r no protruding parts to actually give away its presence

and what you have an extremely low margin game for something that raises your risk of yeast infections while simultaneously increasing your risk in certain circumstances.

U get yeast infections even with sex with yr husband or bf. Even with using douches. What would u do to prevent yrself from being raped? Go and learn self-defence and learn to use a weapon? Then if u r so bothered to go to such lengths to prevent rape, what is the problem with wearing an anti-rape weapon aka female condom that is as ez to insert and remove as a tampon?

4) There is no poison, no toxin, in the device to incapacitate. Nothing to keep them from beating you to a pulp upon discovery of the device, which may very well not be with his dick. If you were likely to walk away alive and--outside of the rape itself--unscathed (which is the most likely scenario in the US, again) then what you have just done is made the situation more volatile and increased your risk of serious injury.

heh, I will take my chances. I say the 1st thing on the rapist's mind is removal of the anti-rape weapon from his sexual organ and stopping the blood flow b4 he dies from it. Not to mention the pain he must be feeling must be quite a distraction....

The answer is intelligence, situational awareness, and rational risk assessment.

All that helps... but they may not help u to actually avoid or prevent a rape from happening. Using this anti-rape weapon will.

Not vigilantism or this vindictive and emotional sense of backwards "justice."

LOL. Now u r pitying the rapist? :D

Understanding risk is about understanding probabilities, not knee-jerk reactions.

This isn't a knee-jerk reaction. It is an actual solution to a 2000-yr-old rape problem. It effectively evens the odds for women. And is an effective deterrant to rapists ever raping again. If a woman consents to sex, fine and good, she will remove the anti-rape weapon herself and have sex willingly with a man. But not so in any other case. It shd be her choice to have sex with a man or not.

Further reading (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), which states:

OK, whatever. Ethics and discomfort aside, there's a more menacing problem with the device. The only effective defense is one that disables an attacker, and the rat trap doesn't. In fact, it increases the chances of a rapist beating his victim to a pulp -- or worse -- when he discovers the cunning little device attached to his member. What, for that matter, prevents the attacker from searching for the device and triggering it before rape?

There's another catch. A recent analysis of 162 rapes in Johannesburg's inner city found that one in four had been a gang rape. So. The first guy gets the bite, his co-conspirators laugh, and business goes on as usual. How does this help the victim?

No solution. If the man searches for this weapon and triggers it and removes it, yes it is back to square one. The woman is defenceless again. But let's see how many rapists actually know of this device? U will be surprised the number will be pretty low. Savvy enuff to do this? Maybe, but then again, maybe not. And it could mean the difference between being raped and not.

No, in a gang rape, the 1st one gets caught and nothing will prevent the rest of the rapists from attacking the woman. But again all this is evening the odds. A woman is better protected with this anti-rape weapon than without it.

pocohauntus

02-04-2009, 05:41 AM

I don'y understand why there is even a thread like this - it's stupid. But I'll tell you what happens to any jerk who even thinks about such an idiotic thing as rape: Think Scary. Think of things such as maybe getting some useless recontructive surgery done on your face and body - useless because it won't help. Think of getting your dick actually bitten off. Think of getting away with it and subsequently being stalked like you've never been stalked before - with the end result being pretty damned ugly. THINK ABOUT THAT, IDIOTS!

firebee

02-04-2009, 10:40 AM

dalidaisy

02-04-2009, 11:20 AM

Anti-Rape Condom? You wear this unless you are having intercourse with your husband? Really? Geez, I don't think I'll ever be THAT afraid. Where do you live that you are so afraid of strangers raping you that you would wear this thing inside your body at all times? I think I would move.

There are much less invasive measures for preventing rape than this.

firebee

02-04-2009, 11:35 AM

Where do you live that you are so afraid of strangers raping you that you would wear this thing inside your body at all times? I think I would move.

Besides which, as you've been so patiently pointing out to us silly macho/macha self-defence hobbyists :D -- stranger rape is a side note compared to the problem of intimate partner violence. The product lyterachooor for this bit of silliness (the pictures! it is to ROFL!) claim that you can just wear this thing on a date and then disarm your ya-ya prior to happy fun time, should you so desire. Aside from that they should really read Snow Crash for a relevant cautionary tale -- what's a person going to do with someone who knows them well enough to realize that they might be trapped, or someone who is messing with their head?

Lovepuss

02-04-2009, 12:12 PM

Aha, looking at the pictures I'm even more convinced... that this thing is a complete joke. It has little plastic barbs.

What makes u think sharp plastic can't make ppl bleed? I can use a plastic chopstick to stab anyone's heart given the end is pointed and sharp enuff.

The thing might be startling, uncomfortable, and difficult to remove, but it still leaves the guy with two arms, two legs, and a very good reason to beat my face in.

I think this point has already come up on the thread, but old fencing manuals refer to groin injuries as being of no importance when the blood is hot. Meaning that if a guy catches a sword in the yarbles, he will be a very unhappy boy indeed once he has killed his opponent and slows down enough to appreciate the pain. So this guy is going to need tin snips and tweezers to get himself disengaged from the thing -- tomorrow. If I'm lucky, I suppose I'll be able to appreciate the satisfaction. Right now, he's furious, and if I could protect myself from him being furious then why didn't I stop him from raping me?

heh, this sounds like victim mentality. Don't make the rapist mad or else u have a hard time from him. As if u r going to get an easier time from him if u lay there quietly and not do anything to make him angry? LOL.

"Only effective and real practical weapon"? You must be kidding me. It's impractical to be aware of your surroundings and to avoid situations that look problematic, but it's practical to wear a mousetrap in your hoo-ha on the off chance a penis will end up there?

heh, I never mock being cautious. But adding a mousetrap would be an effective deterrant, esp if yr sexual organ was caught in one. Not to mention bleeding and in pain in one.

I happen to agree that there is little point in carrying a weapon or in studying more than the most rudimentary unarmed self-defense techniques, unless it is your hobby or you have some other use for the thing to be used as a weapon. It is a low-margin activity that only somewhat changes the distribution of bad outcomes in a situation that is all bad anyway. Having a plastic thing up my snatch does not entertain me, it does not open my mail, and it doesn't even flavor my food. And even if it works as advertised, it doesn't prevent me from being mugged, beaten, killed, or punched in the face for being a blasted annoying INTP.

heh, and the point still exists.... of the weapons and self-defence one can have up one's sleeve to prevent rape, why does it make this anti-rape weapon any different or any less effective?

And again, I will call you out. Where is it written that someone is only a "real" woman if they see themselves as a helpless proto-victim who can do nothing to protect themselves from harm, and can only hope to exact pointless revenge after already having been victimized?

A real woman would go to great lengths to actually do something to prevent rape. Not talk about it. But do something about it. Having an anti-rape weapon IS doing something about it. Beats the alternative to getting raped.

And the offer stands... let's leave out the blood and see which male would volunteer to get his sex organ caught in a mousetrap that would be wayyyyy less painful than this anti-rape contraption.

Oh btw. penises have arteries. On the off-chance that this weapon slices any arteries (which it probably will)... not only will the rapist face the prospect of bleeding to death... he needs to explain to the hospital or A&E unit how he got those injuries in the 1st place. "Did he try to rape anyone?" would be the 1st ? he would need to answer b4 they give him medical attention. He would be thinking twice about going to any hospital ... it could land him a jail sentence as well.

Anti-Rape Condom? You wear this unless you are having intercourse with your husband? Really? Geez, I don't think I'll ever be THAT afraid. Where do you live that you are so afraid of strangers raping you that you would wear this thing inside your body at all times? I think I would move.

There are much less invasive measures for preventing rape than this.

What is so invasive about this?

Never even heard of female condoms? Feels no different than a condom worn by a male inside u.

And no worries about how safe it is ... it is very safe. Read that FAQ again. As ez to insert and remove as a tampon. Unless ofc u have problems using tampons and condoms... then mmmkay. Go back to learning self-defence and carrying weapons then.

firebee

02-04-2009, 01:02 PM

What makes u think sharp plastic can't make ppl bleed? I can use a plastic chopstick to stab anyone's heart given the end is pointed and sharp enuff.

What do I care for bleeding? I bleed for seven days and I don't die.

heh, this sounds like victim mentality. Don't make the rapist mad or else u have a hard time from him. As if u r going to get an easier time from him if u lay there quietly and not do anything to make him angry? LOL.

In this case? Yes. If a guy has gotten so far as to get this thing stuck on his dick in the first place, it follows that I was unable to prevent him from putting his dick where it is usually stored. In this case, I might not want to declare my undying love, but whatever I want to do does not involve doing something that will merely piss him off and do nothing to prevent him from killing me.

heh, and the point still exists.... of the weapons and self-defence one can have up one's sleeve to prevent rape, why does it make this anti-rape weapon any different or any less effective?

A gun will damage muscles, bones, and nerves, and produce an incapacitating shock to the system. A knife will sever tendons and arteries, causing biomechanical inability to move the affected parts, as well as potentially death within 30 seconds. A practitioner of Filipino martial arts once stabbed someone in the leg in a nightclub, because he was being a drunken lout. It severed his femoral artery. He exsanguinated and died before the ambulance got there. Pepper spray will generally make it difficult to see and to draw breath, and if you are not breathing you are not raping. Delivering a stout kick to a knee will destroy the knee, keeping the person from bearing weight on it. If you cannot stand you cannot run. Delivering a punch to the trachea will crush the trachea, leaving the recipient unable to breathe. A person once caught a heavy fencing blade in the throat during a SCA event -- he was wearing a metal gorget which was dented slightly. The dent cracked his trachea and he had to be airlifted off the field. If you are not breathing, you are dead.

A little barbed thing stuck on someone's dick after he has already raped you will piss him off. That is all. He still has two arms, two legs, a functioning nervous system, all his joints, the ability to breathe, no reason not to severely injure you, and several very good reasons to do just that.

A real woman would go to great lengths to actually do something to prevent rape. Not talk about it. But do something about it. Having an anti-rape weapon IS doing something about it. Beats the alternative to getting raped.

You may not be aware that your phrasing has the potential to be exceedingly offensive. I am a cis-gendered presumably-having-of-XX-chromosomes genuine actual woman. Implying that I am not a "real woman" because I do not think that booby-trapping my undercarriage is a valid solution to anything is an insult.

Oh btw. penises have arteries. On the off-chance that this weapon slices any arteries (which it probably will)... not only will the rapist face the prospect of bleeding to death... he needs to explain to the hospital or A&E unit how he got those injuries in the 1st place. "Did he try to rape anyone?" would be the 1st ? he would need to answer b4 they give him medical attention. He would be thinking twice about going to any hospital ... it could land him a jail sentence as well.

The penis has arteries. Like all arteries, they are on the inside. They are not subject to superficial damage such as the damage from these tiny barbs. There is a possibility that the barb might penetrate a vein, which might cause bleeding that is later difficult to stop. Later. Later as in tomorrow, not in the next five minutes, which is all I care about because it is in these five minutes that the guy who has just raped me is likely to murder me.

It is likely that this thing will produce only painful but superficial damage. It is possible that there may be damage that would require medical attention. However, in no case will this device inflict injury that is incapacitating to someone already engaged in a physical fight.

firebee added to this post, 12 minutes and 16 seconds later...

And no worries about how safe it is ... it is very safe. Read that FAQ again. As ez to insert and remove as a tampon. Unless ofc u have problems using tampons and condoms... then mmmkay. Go back to learning self-defence and carrying weapons then.

Yes, it is very safe. That's the problem. It's not all that unsafe to the person who has raped you. I wouldn't half be surprised to find someone who would be interested in using this device for entertainment.

And keep in mind that I do not advocate carrying weapons or practicing self-defence unless you want to for your own reasons. I will be glad to take an hour to teach anyone what might do them good someday -- the other seven years are for fun.

nacht

02-04-2009, 01:06 PM

heh, why is it any less effective? Google it to see it being raved by many women around.

I see it being praised by people who fall in one of two categories.

1) In South Africa, who haven't used it.
2) In the US, who haven't used it and aren't likely too.

South Africa's situation is very different from the US.

The "anti rape condoms" were designed for use in South Africa, where rape by strangers is substantially more of an issue and HIV is a huge concern. It's usefulness in these circumstances is more debatable.

Why is its effectiveness debatable? Would where the rape occur affect its effectiveness? Rape is rape as it is carried out by any male on a female where penetration has occurred.

In South Africa you are looking at rape by strangers with an extremely high frequency.

In the US you are looking at rape by people you know and are possibly intimate with and statistically is not as likely to happen period, much less on the regular basis we are seeing in South Africa.

South Africa is a nightmare in this regard, and so the situation that this device is meant to protect against is common enough to consider it, and thus, more debatable than in the US, where it is unequivocally a bad idea.

In SA the points about gang rape and being beaten to a pulp or raped by an inanimate object still stand.

Again, more objections due to ignorance rather than actually assimilating the information thoroughly.

same link I gave to u : FAQ : To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Again, linking to the manufacturers website is not the way to go here.

I have already posted the statistics on rape in the US (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), you might want to go back and check them.

I assure you, my statistical analysis using the DOJ and RAINN (Rape, Abuse, & Incest National Network) numbers is not "ignorant." Differing people have different risk curves (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), but we should at least agree on the DOJ statistics.

But go ahead and call them ignorant if it makes you feel better.

He can't.

If he is knowledgeable enuff to actually try it. Chances r, in a dark place and in a hurry, he won't.

Assertions not in evidence.

First, I don't think you have actually seen the statistics on rape in the US. Kindly go back and check them to see what forms of rape are most common.

Second, I have checked to see if an IUD is present in a partner before. It isn't difficult, and doesn't require a dick.

If these become common, you can bet rapists will search for them as well, and they don't prevent a woman from being raped in the ass or with an inanimate object. Neither of which improves your situation.

An IUD is inserted within the cervix. Male sex partners can feel the strings of an IUD but they have to penerate u 1st.

It takes a finger and a little manipulation.

The problem with this anti-rape weapon is they r caught the second they ever penetrate u and it is not visible to the rapist from the outside.

It isn't an anti-rape "weapon." It is a trap.

If I may make an observation: You do not seem to actually be responding to my argument, but instead just repeating yourself.

Rape is technically penetration of the victim's vagina with a male penis. If there is no penetration, there isn't any rape.

So a male cannot be raped by a male because there is no vagina involved?

I would also argue that the term is appropriately applied in the case of Lance Corporal Suzanne Marie Collins. She was raped to death with a tree branch that was shoved repeatedly so hard into her that it punctured her lungs.

Her death scream could be heard for over a mile.

I think saying that she was "raped to death with a tree branch" is an appropriate description of what happened.

Violent crime is more of an issue than merely "penis in vagina rape," and protecting against a single specific form of attack is rarely worth the investment. Especially when it is easily bypassed.

U mean u r arguing the case of a rapist? For his rights? I think for a man to violate a woman's rights and modesty and rapes her forcibly... it is absolutely right to remove his rights. The minute u rape a woman it is a crime whereby u have already given up yr rights and have to bear all the subsequent consequences.

I am arguing against vigilante violence and the commission of crimes in vengeance for other crimes. That is the purpose of Rule of Law. If you have the presence of mind to get one of these in preparation, you have the presence of mind to pack up and move to a safe house or get a rape kit.

Yes, though, I will argue for the rights of rapists and murderers.

If you want to take vigilante action: take a gun to his head. But really, this is what safe houses are designed for.

I shd think the rapist would be more concerned with stopping blood flow and getting immediate medical attention b4 he loses his penis and life, but that's just me. Hey, being hit isn't as bad as not being raped now that the desire has totally vacated the rapist's mind.

From the description, it is extremely unlikely--short of severing the penis, which this does not do--that he will pass out and need emergency medical care. We are also not likely to be talking gushing blood unless this thing penetrates the deep artery, which I don't think it can do.

Even if he is bleeding out, he will have time.

Meanwhile, you will be beaten to a pulp or killed. Even if he has to go to jail, even if he has to go immediately to the hospital, he will have enough time to kill you. Before you would have walked away with your bones more-or-less intact and almost certainly with your life.

Now? It is not so certain.

That doesn't sound like a good trade to me.

True. But they would be having more fear against a woman who has successfully prevented rape and inflicted harm on the rapist simultaneously.

Or they would just get a good laugh out of their compatriots discomfiture and "get on with business."

U can wear it all the time, just remove it when u know u have to penetrate yr own vagina. Say yr husband wants to make love to u. What's the problem? Is inserting a tampon and removing it very difficult? This anti-rape weapon does not even cost a lot more than a normal condom.

Thus increasing your chance of yeast infection or even toxic shock, and limiting your options for sex since you have to remove it before having sex. I also don't imagine leaving this thing in overnight is healthy.

Lots of rapists do... like I said.... not many r aware of this anti-rape weapon and from how it looks like from the outside to a rapist, there r no protruding parts to actually give away its presence

All that it takes is one news report for every rapist to start checking with a finger or with a stick.

Or simply switch to raping women in the ass.

heh, I will take my chances. I say the 1st thing on the rapist's mind is removal of the anti-rape weapon from his sexual organ and stopping the blood flow b4 he dies from it. Not to mention the pain he must be feeling must be quite a distraction....

I sincerely doubt he will die of it. The dorsal artery is the only one likely to be penetrated, and it isn't overly large and won't cause a bleed out.

You are thinking of the deep artery, but it is not a superficial artery.

Pain can also cause enragement.

All that helps... but they may not help u to actually avoid or prevent a rape from happening. Using this anti-rape weapon will.

Or it will get you killed.

Given the probability of rape in the US and the likelihood this will ever be used on a rapist, it is more likely to cause you problems than it is to actually ever help you.

LOL. Now u r pitying the rapist? :D

No, I simply believe in rule of law and in effective risk assessment.

Things you obviously do not believe in.

This isn't a knee-jerk reaction. It is an actual solution to a 2000-yr-old rape problem. It effectively evens the odds for women. And is an effective deterrant to rapists ever raping again. If a woman consents to sex, fine and good, she will remove the anti-rape weapon herself and have sex willingly with a man. But not so in any other case. It shd be her choice to have sex with a man or not.

Assertions not in evidence.

No solution. If the man searches for this weapon and triggers it and removes it, yes it is back to square one.

It is not back to square 1. It is back to square -10. They found it, disarmed it, and now have every reason to punish you for it.

This isn't a "no risk" game.

No, in a gang rape, the 1st one gets caught and nothing will prevent the rest of the rapists from attacking the woman. But again all this is evening the odds. A woman is better protected with this anti-rape weapon than without it.

This isn't evening the odds.

"Evening the odds" is learning how to defend yourself and then applying it by avoiding the circumstances as much as possible and, if that's not possible, breaking a kneecap or rearranging a jaw in an effort to get away.

Blades, tasers, and pepper spray also all would help compared to this device.

This is a mousetrap.

Not a weapon, and it won't save you.

Chain

02-05-2009, 11:02 AM

Then, there is domestic violence done by a significant other. Partner rape is real rape. It may happen once or many times. It may involve coercive pressure or battery and torture. It happens in very violent relationships, or in those that are otherwise respectful. Some men honestly do not see forced or coerced sex on their partners as rape. This is often due to socialization about being "entitled" to sex with a partner, or like many other people, seeing a "real" rapist as the stranger in the alleyway. But this doesn't mean you have to buy into that view - it is not okay for you to be harmed because your partner has been socialized a certain way.

IMO, this is garbage. If you don't want to give it up, don't be with them. Especially if you're married; take a good look at standard wedding vows. I don't care what you think about that statement.

Admittedly, we are talking here about "rape", which is the more common endpoint of failure-to-defend-self in women. However, it strikes me as foolish to accept the possibility of being shot or stabbed or having your brains dashed in because you're unlikely to get raped after you're dead.

Let me give you two scenarios:

A person leaves a business and goes to their car in a parking lot after dark. They find two people standing between them and the car, acting strangely. They talk with these people from a fair distance, and when the people do not leave, the person returns to the business they came from and calls the police.

A person leaves a business and goes to their car in a parking lot after dark. They find two people standing between them in the car, acting strangely. They continue on to their car, not paying much attention to these people. They are now flanked by two people who are within killing distance and armed.

Do you need to know the gender, to know who is in a better situation?

Dead men don't bitch.

No, my answer would be the same. However, that wasn't the discussion.

In an empty parking lot there is no one there. If nacht gets raped by a coyote I'll worry :D

Understand that although you have not said such, some people take the approach that women, but not men, should substantially limit their ordinary business for fear of being a victim of crime. This is part of why I say "it sounds like good advice if you are not a woman", because it is easy to determine if something seems like a reasonable restriction for someone else.

"If there’s to be a curfew, let the men stay at home, not the women." -- Golda Meir

This is a whole different discussion.

Let's throw out some interesting statistics (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

60% of sexual assaults are not reported to the police.

73% of sexual assault victims know their assailants.

28% of the time the rapist is already intimate.

Over 50% of all rape and sexual assault incidents were reported by the victims to have happened within 1 mile of their home.

The vast majority of rapes take place either in the victim's own home or in the home of a friend, neighbor, or relative.

So yes, next on "true but totally irrelevant tales," women are more likely to get raped than men. This isn't important.

What is important is that we are dealing with a low margin game for most people, and that there's nothing magical about being male that protects you from violent crime. In fact, men are more likely to be victims of violent crime than women (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), even once you include rape.

In fact, among males ages 20-24 (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) Assault (homicide) is the 2nd leading cause of death. Among 25-34 year olds its the 3rd. Among 20-24 year olds we similar numbers for women... but not among 25-34 year olds, where diseases of the heart cause more deaths.

So self defense isn't only about rape, and the rules that firebee is talking about--being alert, being cautious--don't simply apply to women but to everyone to avoid being a victim of a violent crime.

The problem with statistics is: Figures can lie and liars can figure. Numbers mean absolutely nothing outside of their specific context, which is rarely where they're used. I wonder what would happen to the numbers if you threw out inmates fighting, gang wars, etc.

nacht

02-05-2009, 11:26 AM

The problem with statistics is: Figures can lie and liars can figure. Numbers mean absolutely nothing outside of their specific context, which is rarely where they're used. I wonder what would happen to the numbers if you threw out inmates fighting, gang wars, etc.

The rape statistics wouldn't change much, to start, and I'm not sure any of the other stats would either.

Rather than just asserting that there might be a problem, try and find statistics to back yourself up.

Considering that gang-related homicides made up 6.5% of all homicides in 2003, it seems unlikely that this by itself would cause a flip between men and women given the size of the sample.

The rate in state prisons of homicide is on the order of 5 out of 100,000... and falling. Basically at the level of being immaterial.

boldbidder

02-05-2009, 11:31 AM

The problem with any 'victim' situation is just that we tend to err on the side of the flight reflex and not the fight. Pretend the guy is trying to get your newborn (see that angry evil shit that just popped in your head!) that's the fight, embrace that.

Use knees, elbows, and the crown of your head. Knee the fucker, elbow 'em, grab 'em by the ears and try to ram your forehead through his face. Better yet, if you really want to put his sorry ass down for the count, hold out your hand like you're going to shake hands, now take that nice semi L shape you have in the fleshy area between your thumb and index finger, use that surface and jab 'em in the throat. Doesn't take much, I promise he'll drop faster than a stripper's g-string. ;)

firebee

02-05-2009, 12:20 PM

How many times am I going to say this? Women and men each have some risk of violent crime. With women it is biased toward rape, with men not so much. But in any case -- women and men need to do the same things to prevent stranger violence, and frankly I've met a number of people who think that men have some sort of special dispensation to not have to think about these things. They do. It's called "foolishness".

The problem with statistics is: Figures can lie and liars can figure. Numbers mean absolutely nothing outside of their specific context, which is rarely where they're used. I wonder what would happen to the numbers if you threw out inmates fighting, gang wars, etc.

You're the one who was all for statistics until they didn't agree with you. I wonder what would happen to the numbers if we threw out acquaintance rape and domestic violence?

Chain

02-05-2009, 12:30 PM

The rape statistics wouldn't change much, to start, and I'm not sure any of the other stats would either.

Rather than just asserting that there might be a problem, try and find statistics to back yourself up.

Considering that gang-related homicides made up 6.5% of all homicides in 2003, it seems unlikely that this by itself would cause a flip between men and women given the size of the sample.

The rate in state prisons of homicide is on the order of 5 out of 100,000... and falling. Basically at the level of being immaterial.

It wasn't in regards to rape.

"70% of statistics are made up on the spot." I'm sure it's an exageration and inaccurate, but it gets the point across. Using inaccurate, out-of-context, meaningless numbers to argue inaccurate, out-of-context, meaningless numbers is a waste of time and effort. It proves nothing because it negates none of the fundamental flaws.

Chain added to this post, 1 minutes and 48 seconds later...

You're the one who was all for statistics until they didn't agree with you. I wonder what would happen to the numbers if we threw out acquaintance rape and domestic violence?

When was this?

nacht

02-05-2009, 12:46 PM

It wasn't in regards to rape.

"70% of statistics are made up on the spot." I'm sure it's an exageration and inaccurate, but it gets the point across. Using inaccurate, out-of-context, meaningless numbers to argue inaccurate, out-of-context, meaningless numbers is a waste of time and effort. It proves nothing because it negates none of the fundamental

When was this?

Are you really saying that the DOJ and FBI numbers are incorrect, out of context in a discussion on violent crime, and meaningless?

Chain

02-05-2009, 01:33 PM

Are you really saying that the DOJ and FBI numbers are incorrect, out of context in a discussion on violent crime, and meaningless?

Do you know how the data was gathered and compiled?

I'll give you an example: Early studies of those suffering bipolar disorder found that between 30 and 50% of them committed suicide. Later studies find it's closer to 10-15%. Why such a difference? The original studies were done on hospitalized patients (those that were severe), though they didn't specify that part.

Hell, I can walk out back, measure the depth of a mud puddle and tell you "we had 2 inches of rain."

firebee

02-05-2009, 08:39 PM

It wasn't in regards to rape.

I am flat done saying that the particular endpoint of a violent-crime type encounter perpetrated by strangers in public spaces does not matter when it comes to what degree of caution one ought to exercise when one is in public spaces. We are talking about rape, which happens to be an endpoint that is more popular for women than for men. And I'll concede that if the only thing you care about preventing is rape, then guys can go ahead and dance naked on Colfax at 2AM without a fear in the world (and preferably with cameras). However, if you care about any other factor, such as hypothermia or being arrested for public decency or being robbed, beaten, and left for dead, you'd be well advised to exert exactly the same caution that a woman ought to exert to prevent those things plus rape.

But then again, if we're only talking about the unauthorized penetration of a hole with a pole, and specifically excluding any other comorbid physical nastiness, then I'll join you dancing naked on Colfax also -- because I figure that stranger rape is pretty uncommon, and my overwhelming concern in these matters is not with sexual violation but rather with the maiming or murder that might also be on the menu.

When was this?

It's a totally unreasonable and random conclusion based on this:

OK, lets just throw out all the statics based on gender: Rapes, muggings, other violent crimes, prostate cancer.... it's all useless. One gender has nothing more to worry about than the other.

Unless by "statistics" you meant "the vague feeling I have that I can't support" rather than, for instance, "the number of crime incidents occurring in a given population of people, as compiled by the government", this would seem to indicate that you were reaching for some sort of statistical evidence to prove your case -- rather than arguing that the exact difference in rate doesn't matter because the per-trip incidence for any individual is so low. Which is actually closer to my position, despite the fact that preliminary investigations indicate that the data actually makes me wonder about another tangentially-related theory of mine (best summed up by my instructor's statement of "A guy will get in people's faces and start a fight. A girl will just kill you.")

Oh, and by the way: Worrying is worse than useless. Do (or do not).

nacht

02-05-2009, 10:06 PM

Do you know how the data was gathered and compiled?

I'll give you an example: Early studies of those suffering bipolar disorder found that between 30 and 50% of them committed suicide. Later studies find it's closer to 10-15%. Why such a difference? The original studies were done on hospitalized patients (those that were severe), though they didn't specify that part.

Hell, I can walk out back, measure the depth of a mud puddle and tell you "we had 2 inches of rain."

You do realize these are compilations based on accurate and verifiable reports, especially when it comes to the rate of homicide in prison populations, right?

All of the information about how that data is gathered and compiled is reported in the methodology section of the reports it comes from. Where such is not blazingly obvious in the report, it is easily findable on the DOJ or FBI website.

You are claiming methodological flaws, but you cannot point to a single one and haven't actually investigated, just your vague feeling thereof. Right?

You want to say that "70% of stats are made up on the spot" when the person you are talking to is posting actual research, not "made up statistics."

It doesn't work like that: if you have a problem with the studies, say which ones and what the specific problem is. Don't just handwave and claim that all statistics are invalid because you don't like them.

You want to claim they are distorting the truth? Fine, then prove it.

Chain

02-06-2009, 09:26 AM

I am flat done saying that the particular endpoint of a violent-crime type encounter perpetrated by strangers in public spaces does not matter when it comes to what degree of caution one ought to exercise when one is in public spaces. We are talking about rape, which happens to be an endpoint that is more popular for women than for men. And I'll concede that if the only thing you care about preventing is rape, then guys can go ahead and dance naked on Colfax at 2AM without a fear in the world (and preferably with cameras). However, if you care about any other factor, such as hypothermia or being arrested for public decency or being robbed, beaten, and left for dead, you'd be well advised to exert exactly the same caution that a woman ought to exert to prevent those things plus rape.

But then again, if we're only talking about the unauthorized penetration of a hole with a pole, and specifically excluding any other comorbid physical nastiness, then I'll join you dancing naked on Colfax also -- because I figure that stranger rape is pretty uncommon, and my overwhelming concern in these matters is not with sexual violation but rather with the maiming or murder that might also be on the menu.

One minute it's a rape discussion, the next it's all violent crime. Running in circles is getting exhausting.

It's a totally unreasonable and random conclusion based on this:

Statistics are fun to think about. I have a problem with using them out of context. Considering the frequency that that happens, unless I know how they were compiled or their label is specific rather than broad, I don't trust them.

Unless by "statistics" you meant "the vague feeling I have that I can't support" rather than, for instance, "the number of crime incidents occurring in a given population of people, as compiled by the government", this would seem to indicate that you were reaching for some sort of statistical evidence to prove your case -- rather than arguing that the exact difference in rate doesn't matter because the per-trip incidence for any individual is so low. Which is actually closer to my position, despite the fact that preliminary investigations indicate that the data actually makes me wonder about another tangentially-related theory of mine (best summed up by my instructor's statement of "A guy will get in people's faces and start a fight. A girl will just kill you.")

Oh, and by the way: Worrying is worse than useless. Do (or do not).

Making assumptions is always a wise decision. It's so much more effective than asking questions.

You do realize these are compilations based on accurate and verifiable reports, especially when it comes to the rate of homicide in prison populations, right?

All of the information about how that data is gathered and compiled is reported in the methodology section of the reports it comes from. Where such is not blazingly obvious in the report, it is easily findable on the DOJ or FBI website.

You are claiming methodological flaws, but you cannot point to a single one and haven't actually investigated, just your vague feeling thereof. Right?

You want to say that "70% of stats are made up on the spot" when the person you are talking to is posting actual research, not "made up statistics."

It doesn't work like that: if you have a problem with the studies, say which ones and what the specific problem is. Don't just handwave and claim that all statistics are invalid because you don't like them.

You want to claim they are distorting the truth? Fine, then prove it.

Again, making assumptions is always a wise decision.

I said I don't trust statistics, they're often out of context and thus meaningless.
I asked if there was information on how they were compiled.
I said, I wonder how the numbers would change if...

I never argued with the numbers. I never said those particular numbers were right or wrong. I never said your point was wrong. I never claimed they were distorting the truth. Now did I?

Sinequanon

02-06-2009, 09:46 AM

One minute it's a rape discussion, the next it's all violent crime. Running in circles is getting exhausting.
Because they are equating the frequency of rape, a violent act committed primarily against women, thought to occur in the public sphere, to other violent acts committed against all genders. The study of this frequency could lead to a lifting of the stigma that says that women (in particular) should not be outdoors alone at night, and instead say that everyone, male or female, needs to protect themselves when they're alone at night. The stigma portion being a part of the patriarchy that tends to hold women back in some way.

As for all the stuff about statistics, my reading of the thread was that you questioned the validity of them in any functional sense, and they're saying that it's very clear/easy to discern their methodology, but if you have an issue with them, it's up to you to do the work to examine them and explain why they're not relevant to the discussion.

blatant

02-06-2009, 09:49 AM

Um...isn't rape 80% of the time committed by someone you know???

nacht

02-06-2009, 10:10 AM

Um...isn't rape 80% of the time committed by someone you know???

Close, 73% (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

firebee

02-06-2009, 10:37 AM

One minute it's a rape discussion, the next it's all violent crime. Running in circles is getting exhausting.

Pah, running in circles? My instructor is going to have words with me about beating my head against the wall.

You seem to be bound and determined to constrain the topic beyond the point of any actual usefulness. We are talking about the subset of rape that is itself a subset of violent crime. From the standpoint of whether a man or a woman should be "more cautious" or "less cautious" or "equally cautious", in public, it does not matter in particular what happens to them if they fuck up.

I know I'm an obnoxiously wordy annoying bint, but I just don't see any other way I can explain this. Perhaps someone else can have a go?

Statistics are fun to think about. I have a problem with using them out of context. Considering the frequency that that happens, unless I know how they were compiled or their label is specific rather than broad, I don't trust them.

Statistics are fun to think about when they agree with you. Noted and agreed. I would also extend that statistics can only get you so far, particularly when the event under discussion is a relatively low-probability one.

Making assumptions is always a wise decision. It's so much more effective than asking questions.[/QUOTE]

If you have to use sarcasm tags to indicate you're being sarcastic... sarcasm FAIL.

...

Something that I find to be of serious concern is a fair proportion of women seem to be trained to be generally and unactionably anxious. That is to say that they are "worried" because they are female, or "worried" because it is dark -- but their "worry" overshadows the genuine concern they might also have about the microexpression they see on the face of the guy holding the elevator for them. I'd break out my Gift of Fear, but someone else has it. Suffice it to say that being afraid is useless unless you're afraid for the right reasons.

The other thing that I find to be of serious concern is that a fair proportion of men seem to be trained to think that they don't have any reason at all to "worry", because their Y chromosome grants unto them the ability to deal with anything that may come up. It is simply not that hard to get in over your head.

For that reason alone, beyond any more concerns about the patriarchy or generally the degree to which this sort of thing is used as social control, I would really prefer to see men and women replace their over- and under- confidence with a "baby bear" approach to the question -- no more and no less than the caution which is required.

Chain

02-06-2009, 10:48 AM

As for all the stuff about statistics, my reading of the thread was that you questioned the validity of them in any functional sense, and they're saying that it's very clear/easy to discern their methodology, but if you have an issue with them, it's up to you to do the work to examine them and explain why they're not relevant to the discussion.

With nacht being kind enough to inform me that that type of information was present, I just finished going through the DOJ website. I'll admit, it's much more thorough than I thought it would be. The fundamental problems of polling are still present, but their numbers are probably about as accurate as they can be since they've done quite a bit to account for that.

Because they are equating the frequency of rape, a violent act committed primarily against women, thought to occur in the public sphere, to other violent acts committed against all genders. The study of this frequency could lead to a lifting of the stigma that says that women (in particular) should not be outdoors alone at night, and instead say that everyone, male or female, needs to protect themselves when they're alone at night. The stigma portion being a part of the patriarchy that tends to hold women back in some way.

Two problems with that:

1. Jumping back and forth whenever it suits you. When you counter this... "It's a rape discussion." When discuss rape... "but look at all these other things." Which is it?

2. Some things, though violent, aren't necessarily as dangerous. Using the DOJ's numbers, the most prevelant violent crime is "simple assault," which could mean a lot of different things. With the statistics publsihed the way they are, you can't argue it using numbers without making a lot of assumptions.

Sinequanon

02-06-2009, 10:54 AM

With nacht being kind enough to inform me that that type of information was present, I just finished going through the DOJ website. I'll admit, it's much more thorough than I thought it would be. The fundamental problems of polling are still present, but their numbers are probably about as accurate as they can be since they've done quite a bit to account for that.
Those numbers are likely going to be about as accurate as numbers are going to get, I think.

Two problems with that:

1. Jumping back and forth whenever it suits you. When you counter this... "It's a rape discussion." When discuss rape... "but look at all these other things." Which is it?
I don't think they were jumping back and forth, I think they were developing a rather interesting argument. Rape is thought of as something that commonly occurs to women by strangers outdoors. Statistics show otherwise. And to the level that the type of rape that is commonly thought to happen occurs, in the scheme of other violent crime committed against all genders, it doesn't show itself as a statistical outlier. That is very interesting, and put in context, shows that the stigma towards rape and its attendant social obligations put upon women should be challenged.

2. Some things, though violent, aren't necessarily as dangerous. Using the DOJ's numbers, the most prevelant violent crime is "simple assault," which could mean a lot of different things. With the statistics publsihed the way they are, you can't argue it using numbers without making a lot of assumptions.
This, I believe is where you may have some room to argue, but I don't know that you're being specific enough about a claim (with respect to whatever you're getting at) to have made a real point here, yet.

firebee

02-06-2009, 11:12 AM

Because they are equating the frequency of rape, a violent act committed primarily against women, thought to occur in the public sphere, to other violent acts committed against all genders. The study of this frequency could lead to a lifting of the stigma that says that women (in particular) should not be outdoors alone at night, and instead say that everyone, male or female, needs to protect themselves when they're alone at night. The stigma portion being a part of the patriarchy that tends to hold women back in some way.

This is as good a summary as any, except it's not a matter of "thought to be in the public sphere". We're currently talking about those rapes that do occur in the public sphere, which is a small proportion of all rapes but the only ones where your conduct in parking lots matters.

If we want to talk about rape as a whole, then the comment that women should prevent rape by constraining their public behavior is even worse advice -- since that won't do much at all for being raped by your date or your friend or your coworker.

firebee added to this post, 12 minutes and 11 seconds later...

This, I believe is where you may have some room to argue, but I don't know that you're being specific enough about a claim (with respect to whatever you're getting at) to have made a real point here, yet.

Not really. "Simple assault" has a specific legal definition. Not to say that there aren't questions, but the categories are pretty strictly defined.

Basically, this is the best data we're going to get. Whether that is good enough for our purposes is still an open question.

Sinequanon

02-06-2009, 11:34 AM

This is as good a summary as any, except it's not a matter of "thought to be in the public sphere". We're currently talking about those rapes that do occur in the public sphere, which is a small proportion of all rapes but the only ones where your conduct in parking lots matters.
No what I mean is that the common perception of rape being something that occurs primarily in dark alleys with women who are walking alone is incorrect, since the overwhelming majority of rapes don't happen that way. But OF the ones that do happen that way, they don't make up a statistical abnormality in the range of other violent crimes across all genders.

If we want to talk about rape as a whole, then the comment that women should prevent rape by constraining their public behavior is even worse advice -- since that won't do much at all for being raped by your date or your friend or your coworker.
We're not disagreeing then.
Not really. "Simple assault" has a specific legal definition. Not to say that there aren't questions, but the categories are pretty strictly defined.

Basically, this is the best data we're going to get. Whether that is good enough for our purposes is still an open question.
I know but I'm trying to give Chain something to do. ;)

firebee

02-06-2009, 11:57 AM

No what I mean is that the common perception of rape being something that occurs primarily in dark alleys with women who are walking alone is incorrect, since the overwhelming majority of rapes don't happen that way. But OF the ones that do happen that way, they don't make up a statistical abnormality in the range of other violent crimes across all genders.

I think we're in nigh unto complete agreement. One minor difference that I'd point out is that although it seems that rape is pretty uncommon compared to robbery, assault, et cetera... Even if this were not the case, if women were overwhelmingly raped instead of robbed, and men were always robbed and never raped, the process for getting to the point of a thing happening is universal across genders.

Which I suppose it might not entirely be, as I suspect you don't often see women being confrontational in public with strangers in a way that tends to lead to mutual combat. There's probably a table somewhere in the victimization study for precisely this....

Chain

02-06-2009, 12:26 PM

Not really. "Simple assault" has a specific legal definition. Not to say that there aren't questions, but the categories are pretty strictly defined.

Yep. Everything from a mere threat to actually hitting someone without causing "severe" damage. Very specific.

Chain added to this post, 2 minutes and 25 seconds later...

I think we're in nigh unto complete agreement. One minor difference that I'd point out is that although it seems that rape is pretty uncommon compared to robbery, assault, et cetera... Even if this were not the case, if women were overwhelmingly raped instead of robbed, and men were always robbed and never raped, the process for getting to the point of a thing happening is universal across genders.

Which I suppose it might not entirely be, as I suspect you don't often see women being confrontational in public with strangers in a way that tends to lead to mutual combat. There's probably a table somewhere in the victimization study for precisely this....

I didn't see one. The only gender based statistic I found was: 26/1000 men have been victims and 23/1000 women have been victims.

nacht

02-06-2009, 12:44 PM

Yep. Everything from a mere threat to actually hitting someone without causing "severe" damage. Very specific.

You will find simple assault (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) broken out into "no injury" and "minor injury." If a weapon is used or the individual is injured in a nontrivial fashion it is aggravated assault.

Pocketpicking and purse snatching are considered nonviolent and the rate between men and women is equal.

I didn't see one. The only gender based statistic I found was: 26/1000 men have been victims and 23/1000 women have been victims.

The rate in 2006 is 26.7 for men and 22.7 for women for crimes of violence. The rate of rape and sexual assault is 1.8 for women, ~0.2 for men. Of these around half are actual rapes for women, with the remaining incidents split between sexual assault and attempted rape. Rape forms 1.0% of all victimizations, about half of all incidents of aggravated assault with an injury.

The rate of robbery is 2.0 for women, 3.9 for men and the numbers for men are approximately twice women's in every category of robbery (exempting attempting to take property but failing without injury, in which case there were so few cases for women and men that it is estimated at the same level).

The rate for aggravated assault was 6.3 for men and 4.6 for women. With injury the rate is 2.0 for men and 1.8 for women. Threatened with a weapon is 4.3 for men and 2.9 for women.

The rate for simple assault was 16.3 for men and 14.3 for women. With minor injury is 3.5 for men and 3.8 for women. Without injury is 12.8 for men and 10.5 for women.

We also see that rape rarely happens to either sex in a public venue. Even when it involves strangers it occurs at or in their home (~27.6% of the time), near their home but not on the street (~17.5%), or in a friend's/relative's/neighbor's house (~11.8%). Parking lots make up ~3.4% of the cases where the rapist is a stranger.

Where no percent is used the number is represented as a rate per 1000 persons.

firebee

02-06-2009, 01:01 PM

You will find simple assault (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) broken out into "no injury" and "minor injury." If a weapon is used or the individual is injured in a nontrivial fashion it is aggravated assault.

I'd also add because I smell an attempt to wrangle on this in the air... It's not necessary to make a completely rigid boundary of "inclusive only of injuries requiring an icepack or less than three stitches or that involved later use of the word "fuck!" while sitting" in order to have something valid enough to draw conclusions about. If you want to argue about whether all the angels dancing on the head of a pin have all their toes on at any given time, fine. But that's not an honest attempt at debate.

Chain

02-06-2009, 01:35 PM

The rate in 2006 is 26.7 for men and 22.7 for women for crimes of violence. The rate of rape and sexual assault is 1.8 for women, ~0.2 for men. Of these around half are actual rapes for women, with the remaining incidents split between sexual assault and attempted rape. Rape forms 1.0% of all victimizations, about half of all incidents of aggravated assault with an injury.

The rate of robbery is 2.0 for women, 3.9 for men and the numbers for men are approximately twice women's in every category of robbery (exempting attempting to take property but failing without injury, in which case there were so few cases for women and men that it is estimated at the same level).

The rate for aggravated assault was 6.3 for men and 4.6 for women. With injury the rate is 2.0 for men and 1.8 for women. Threatened with a weapon is 4.3 for men and 2.9 for women.

The rate for simple assault was 16.3 for men and 14.3 for women. With minor injury is 3.5 for men and 3.8 for women. Without injury is 12.8 for men and 10.5 for women.

We also see that rape rarely happens to either sex in a public venue. Even when it involves strangers it occurs at or in their home (~27.6% of the time), near their home but not on the street (~17.5%), or in a friend's/relative's/neighbor's house (~11.8%). Parking lots make up ~3.4% of the cases where the rapist is a stranger.

Where no percent is used the number is represented as a rate per 1000 persons.

Thank you for the numbers. I did end up finding them and feeling like an idiot after I said that.

According to the numbers, I'll agree the frequency is about even with men getting it slightly worse.

I'd also add because I smell an attempt to wrangle on this in the air... It's not necessary to make a completely rigid boundary of "inclusive only of injuries requiring an icepack or less than three stitches or that involved later use of the word "fuck!" while sitting" in order to have something valid enough to draw conclusions about. If you want to argue about whether all the angels dancing on the head of a pin have all their toes on at any given time, fine. But that's not an honest attempt at debate.

I'm not the one making assumptions and looking for a fight. I'm just asking questions, looking for data and seeing how it fits.

Krazy P

02-07-2009, 12:04 AM

This is what I have told my daughters.

First, act like a mentally and physically damaged person. Twitch, make gutteral noises, etc. This triggers a specie level response that you are not a good "mate". I have used this myself.

Second, rip their ears off. Literally. Grab one or both ears and tear.

This can be easy if you can keep a hand free - pretend to caress their face (or not).

When someone's ear comes off (and it is easy to do) it bleeds like the dickens and hurts a lot and freaks them out.

Scream as loud as you can and keep screaming.

Sinequanon

02-07-2009, 12:16 AM

Ermisenda

02-07-2009, 01:10 AM

I cant believe the arugment AGAINST the barbed condom thing. I would feel safer with it. You see how guys stop, fall or freeze in shock when someone kicks them in the balls, the pain they feel. Imagine getting barbs into it? Sure its not going to be absolutely fool-proof or always save you but it gives the female a better chance. If she is in such a place where she feels the need to wear this, it might be more useful to ALSO bring a knife or a different weapon to strike him when he is weak after being 'barbed' on the penis. Most likely, he will freak out. And in America (how many point out) how many male relatives are going to know about this thing? I would freak out if I suddenly realised i had a device with barbs of soemsort, digging into my vagina. I would be a little more then freaking out. This rapeaXe would prevent alot of rapes from happening (excluding gang rape, thats a situation that would be increidbly hard to get out unharmed unless you were uma thurma from kill bill or something). But of course, I also don't see the total use of it in America or even australia (the country I am currently living in) because the rape rate is lower but what about females who are constantly being molested and decide to not want this anymore, they can get this, they can arm themselves and prevent it from happening again. I think its brilliant (if it works). There are flaws to everything and not one device is ever going to solve every rape case but I think this is a great start to protetcting yourself from rape if your in a situation or area which its common or you just feel the need to. Some of you pointed out that to use a weapon such as a gun or knife you need training and all this but with this rapeaXe thing you dont. And plus, after its latched onto his penis who says she cant take out a concleaed knife and stab him? Or defend herself further, or even better yet. Run.

JustMel

02-07-2009, 01:28 AM

I think if this were more marketed and used we'd have fewer rapes........ but that's just me.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

nacht

02-07-2009, 01:32 AM

I cant believe the arugment AGAINST the barbed condom thing. I would feel safer with it. You see how guys stop, fall or freeze in shock when someone kicks them in the balls, the pain they feel.

I love the utterly imaginative scenarios people come up with to defend this thing.

I must assume you have seen this mostly on TV.

I have been kicked in the groin (thou shall not spar in martial arts class with thy ex when not wearing a cup). If the adrenaline is going, you can basically keep going until the blood cools off (at which point the collapsing part comes to play). It causes nonstructural damage, which means someone who is using drugs can generally ignore it (angel dust ftl).

The parts also that really cause massive amounts of pain when hit are the scrotum and the prostate. Neither of which are touched by this device. The shaft, while sensitive, is not the part that makes guys "fall or freeze in shock" when kicked.

As to the rest of this...

If a female is "constantly being molested" there are perfectly legal and safe ways for her to handle it. They involve the police and a rape kit, or at a minimum a safehouse.

If you use a device like this in retaliation because you "don't want this anymore" then it is (notably) illegal and you will probably be prosecuted for it.

This tool is just going to make the woman's situation worse. Kindly read the rest of the argument presented by firebee and myself on this topic before continuing, since we address most of the rest of your points there.

firebee

02-07-2009, 01:43 AM

/me revs up the wood chipper.

What is it about unsociable hours of the morning that brings out the dentatas from the vaginas?

I cant believe the arugment AGAINST the barbed condom thing. I would feel safer with it.

I've no doubt you'd feel safer. This seems to be something of a theme with these devices -- that they produce some sort of vague feeling of comfort from having them or even just reading about them. The problem is you wouldn't actually be safer. As I've said in astoundingly great detail to the previous proposer of this solution. If I'm going to be carrying a comfort object in my lovely lady bits, I'd much prefer it to have batteries.

If she is in such a place where she feels the need to wear this, it might be more useful to ALSO bring a knife or a different weapon to strike him when he is weak after being 'barbed' on the penis.

In that case, why not forego the vagina-mounted mouse-trap and use the "knife or different weapon" to stab him in the family jewels before he rapes you? Then, when he's doing the TV sitcom fall-over-make-faces thing, you can make with the running. If we're fantasizing, that is. But if we're fantasizing, I'll get out my strategically creased set of Jacqueline Carey books rather than anything to do with martial arts.

But of course, I also don't see the total use of it in America or even australia (the country I am currently living in) because the rape rate is lower but what about females who are constantly being molested and decide to not want this anymore, they can get this, they can arm themselves and prevent it from happening again. I think its brilliant (if it works).

If you're constantly being molested and you have the means and opportunity to acquire a willy-eater, by all means buy one and take it with you when you LEAVE! On the other hand, if you must exact illegal and immoral revenge instead of protecting yourself, at least do it with something apt to be more effective. Cast iron frying pans, for example.

There are flaws to everything and not one device is ever going to solve every rape case but I think this is a great start to protetcting yourself from rape if your in a situation or area which its common or you just feel the need to.

Um. No. A great start to protecting yourself against rape (and a lot of other nasty situations) is to read Gavin deBecker's The Gift of Fear and apply the concepts therein. A possible good supplement to this, if you are so inclined, is to find a martial arts practice that is agreeable to you and to practice it. Not so much for the technique, but rather for the mindset. Sir Not Appearing On This List Of Techniques is booby-trapping yourself to exact a tiny bit of revenge after you've already been raped.

Some of you pointed out that to use a weapon such as a gun or knife you need training and all this but with this rapeaXe thing you dont. And plus, after its latched onto his penis who says she cant take out a concleaed knife and stab him? Or defend herself further, or even better yet. Run.

Why not stab him or defend yourself or run before you get raped?

nacht

02-07-2009, 01:46 AM

/me revs up the wood chipper.

What is it about unsociable hours of the morning that brings out the dentatas from the vaginas?

Vagina Dentata... what a wonderful phrase... (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Vagina dentata-ain't no passin' craaaaaaaze-

It means no weiner, for the rest of your daaaays...

Ermisenda

02-07-2009, 02:39 AM

Why not stab him or defend yourself or run before you get raped?

And if your not experienced with the weapon? Many stated above that they use knives or your weapon against you, leaving you defenseless. If you use this 'rapex' thing then at least he is WEAKER and you have ebtter chance in defending yourself and actually doing some real 'damage'. When the attacker is confused, in pain (or watever other feeling there feeling which i doubt it complete and utter calmness) then there senses arent as attuned, giving the female the chance to strike rather then strike at first and risk having the weapon taken off her.

I do get what your saying but I am just saying that using this would increase the chances of stopping that rape incident. In the end everything has risk but its all about making the females CHANCES higher of not being attacked or successfully raped e.g not going out in dark alleys at night and whatever else.

Nacht if there were barbs of some sort latched onto your penis, causing bleeding and pain to that sensitive area (maybe not necessarily as sensitive as your scrotum in general) would it cause a lot of pain? Because it seemed in your post as if this device latching onto someones penis wouldn't cause them alot of pain. Sorry if I am misunderstanding.

I'm just wondering, do you think this rapex thing is useless then?

LionsPride

02-07-2009, 09:25 AM

I'm just wondering, do you think this rapex thing is useless then?

Yes. I think that's exactly what they are saying. I'd go so far to say that it is MORE dangerous if it makes women feel too safe for wearing one.

Nacht if there were barbs of some sort latched onto your penis, causing bleeding and pain to that sensitive area (maybe not necessarily as sensitive as your scrotum in general) would it cause a lot of pain? Because it seemed in your post as if this device latching onto someones penis wouldn't cause them a lot of pain. Sorry if I am misunderstanding.

Sure it would cause them pain, but you would likely get one of two scenarios.

They are so pumped with adrenaline they don't care/ aren't crippled at all
The pain starts their adrenaline and now they are angry and close enough to you to smash your face in retaliation.

The thing is being raped is bad. Being raped and then beaten to a pulp because your rapist is pissed with your device is worse. I know the idea that you can hurt your rapist on some level since they are hurting you is very satisfactory, but at the expense of your own life is not a good way.

Considering that you are more likely to be raped by someone you know, a stranger in your own house, etc. Then this weapon is no better than the other weapons mentioned because people aren't wearing them/carrying them in those situations. I understand your argument that it might improve your odds in that last 10% of cases, but based on what has been said previously, this is not the solution you want it to be.

JustMel

02-07-2009, 11:20 AM

When I think of the rapex device I think of the girls who are raped while given a date rape drug at a party. In that scenario I can see the product being more effective if it's a one on one thing. If it's a gang rape there's nothing that will be effective, IMO. Rape is about power not sex. There are some countries where a wife can't say no and you have spousal rape in which cases the device would be pointless. Yes, I can see where he would be angry enough to snap and beat the woman to death if it's a one person rape but I can also see the aspect of pain and surpised pain at that it would cause.

Do I think women should use the device every time they walk out of their homes? No, it wouldn't be practical but just as someone said about using martial arts for the mindset--perhaps wearing the device would give her the same mindset. I see both sides of the argument.

Cairech

02-07-2009, 12:08 PM

Gods, there is SO much bad information thrown at women on this topic. I have gotten dozens, perhaps hundreds of e-mails full of bad information and really, seriously bad advice.

Rape is a horrid thing. Its effects can last generations. It is the only crime that perpetuates itself genetically. It is a uniquely human crime; to the best of my knowledge, rape is not practiced by any other creature.

I recommend that all girls learn to fight. This is a serious deficit in our raising. Boys are taught to fight, it's tradition. Good boys are taught to not fight or hit girls. Girls are taught to not fight. These things season and prepare girls to become easy victims.

I was once in a restaurant toilet when two young sisters and their young brother entered. The boy hit his sisters, constantly. He struck them with a hammer fist over and over, without stopping, the entire time we were in the restroom. The girls held up their hands to catch his blows, leaning away from him but otherwise accepting his violence. I think this is typical of the problem. Many women are trained to accept violence from men.

The marriage state has been a problem in this regard. For centuries, the laws of nearly every country said that a woman was the physical property of her father or husband, and not a person in her own right. He had legal rights to her body regardless of her opinion or desire. It takes many generations to rid people of this style of thought. Personally, I'm very, very glad this is changing in the USA!!!

I took 1.5 years of tae kwon do and it changed my understanding of the world. I came to understand the value of subtle, educated force. I learned a lot about awareness and using my body in the most effective way, and not just in fighting. I learned how to judge proximity and became more aware of a person's presence.

If an armed society is a polite society, then perhaps a trained society is a safer one.

LionsPride

02-07-2009, 12:35 PM

When I think of the rapex device I think of the girls who are raped while given a date rape drug at a party. In that scenario I can see the product being more effective if it's a one on one thing.

If there is a girl who is so aware about date rape that she wears a rapex to every party she goes to, do you not think that there are countless other preventative measures that would be better suited? The buddy system, the "never leave a girl alone with a man system", the "what are the signs of drugging" system, etc. I just think that a woman who is that aware, would probably never make herself the easiest victim at the party in the first place.

And if you are talking about the girls who toss in the rapex and then say "okay, now I can get smashed!", then I'm not sure that even the rapex is going to save them. Besides, there is more then one way to violate an unconscious girl that the rapex is not going to protect against.

firebee

02-07-2009, 12:54 PM

When I think of the rapex device I think of the girls who are raped while given a date rape drug at a party.

Perhaps it will do some good in that when these girls are applying the booby trap they will think "Oh wait. Maybe I should not go to this party?"

Do I think women should use the device every time they walk out of their homes? No, it wouldn't be practical but just as someone said about using martial arts for the mindset--perhaps wearing the device would give her the same mindset. I see both sides of the argument.

Wearing a fantastical man-trap will give you a mindset, I'm sure, much like practicing martial arts will give you a mindset. One of these mindsets, though, is potentially useful and productive and one is not.

And just for random, when I read on the site "Our engineers designed an artificial penis and vagina..." I'm an engineer, so I immediately translated that to "Our engineers went to the store and came back with several packs of stadium brats, a watermelon, and a holesaw. And a bag of charcoal for later."

nacht

02-07-2009, 05:08 PM

Nacht if there were barbs of some sort latched onto your penis, causing bleeding and pain to that sensitive area (maybe not necessarily as sensitive as your scrotum in general) would it cause a lot of pain? Because it seemed in your post as if this device latching onto someones penis wouldn't cause them alot of pain. Sorry if I am misunderstanding.

I'm just wondering, do you think this rapex thing is useless then?

Sure it would cause a lot of pain. The problem is that adrenaline and certain drugs (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) allow you to focus through that pain. With adrenaline alone you can take a fairly ugly wound and not actually notice it until after it wears off (oh wait, I'm bleeding!). George Silver remarked in his 1599 Paradoxes of Defense that:

And again, the thrust being made through the hand, arm, or leg, or in many places of the body and face, are not deadly, neither are they maims, or loss of limbs or life, neither is he much hindered for the time in his fight, as long as the blood is hot...

Most assuredly being thrust through with a sword hurts. In some cases you'll know immediately that if you stop fighting you will collapse, in others you won't realize it until after the fight, but regardless it is going to hurt. But so long as "the blood is hot" your adversary will not be overly affected.

So if their blood is hot--which it is likely to be in an aggravated rape case--the person using this could very well be beaten to a pulp before he seeks medical attention, which is not an improvement on her situation.

For date rape it has the potential to make the situation much worse. The use of "date rape drugs" is also relatively rare, so what you are likely to do is have this attached to some poor kid who was too drunk to understand consent when the woman is too drunk to give consent: not to defend the rapist, but I tend to think the better solution is to not get that drunk in the first place.

In summary I think "this rapex thing" is worse than useless. I think it increases your risk of something worse happening in the situations where it might actually do something, gives a false sense of confidence in situations where one isn't warranted, increases your risk of a yeast infection and toxic shock, and is unlikely to actually be in if the individual does get raped in the US and similar nations.

firebee

02-07-2009, 05:25 PM

Sure it would cause a lot of pain.

And just to emphasize: It does not take all that much of a change in headspace to turn "OWOWOWPAIN" to "oh hey. pain?" With a tiny bit of competitiveness plus some aerobic exercise, I can be dragged around by nerve pressure points that normally make me jump through the ceiling, without hardly noticing.

This applies to you also, not just your assailant. This is why, if you get into a messy situation with someone where the police are called, et cetera, some folks advise that you ask to be taken to the hospital even if you think you're just fine. You might find out that you have a broken finger or a gash up your forearm or that you're having a heart attack.

JustMel

02-08-2009, 06:38 PM

Perhaps it will do some good in that when these girls are applying the booby trap they will think "Oh wait. Maybe I should not go to this party?"

Wearing a fantastical man-trap will give you a mindset, I'm sure, much like practicing martial arts will give you a mindset. One of these mindsets, though, is potentially useful and productive and one is not.

And just for random, when I read on the site "Our engineers designed an artificial penis and vagina..." I'm an engineer, so I immediately translated that to "Our engineers went to the store and came back with several packs of stadium brats, a watermelon, and a holesaw. And a bag of charcoal for later."

I know several people who have been raped and have counseled others who have been. My husband's ex wife was drugged at a bar one night when he was with her. She was feeling "weird" and the next morning still felt "strange" so they went to the local drug testing place and had her tested and she tested positive for a date rape drug. They used to go out in groups and the girls always went to the bathroom together and she still managed to end up drugged. She didn't drink anything that left her possession. I suspect she and the other females were snorting cocaine while in the bathroom since that was their thing and I don't know if the date rape drugs can be ingested that way and haven't cared enough to research it.

I think the mindset women are looking for is confidence and whether they get it from the rapex device or martial arts training it's the same outcome. I have seen people with martial arts training who froze when the time came or in the case of some women were overpowered anyway.

Saying a girl should avoid parties where the potential for rape exists is idiotic. We know they shouldn't go to parties if they suspect they maybe in danger BUT since most women are raped by someone they know they will likely not feel a sense of danger when they are among friends. That statement to me is almost like saying the woman who walks to her car at night and gets raped shouldn't have been walking to her car alone. We need to teach males to control themselves and how to deal with the emotions that lead them to rape in the first place.

firebee

02-08-2009, 11:12 PM

I suspect she and the other females were snorting cocaine while in the bathroom since that was their thing and I don't know if the date rape drugs can be ingested that way and haven't cared enough to research it.

Er, I think one should also keep ahold of one's cocaine, as well as one's drink, when one is among strangers. If the only thing she ingested was the cocaine, I'd be real suspicious indeed that it was adulterated.

I think the mindset women are looking for is confidence and whether they get it from the rapex device or martial arts training it's the same outcome. I have seen people with martial arts training who froze when the time came or in the case of some women were overpowered anyway.

You have a point that confidence is an important component, at least in the case of stranger rape. However, there are two things -- first of all, is it really going to give a person a great deal of confidence when people are approaching her with the apparent intent to rape, that if they get all the way to the point where this device comes into play they'll be damaged? Second, in the case of stranger rape, we've been making the point that it's a subset of violent crime in public. If someone comes to rob such a person -- which is more common -- they can do a lot of damage without ever having anything to do with the device. Which, actually, is true if the end goal is rape also!

Saying a girl should avoid parties where the potential for rape exists is idiotic. We know they shouldn't go to parties if they suspect they maybe in danger BUT since most women are raped by someone they know they will likely not feel a sense of danger when they are among friends. That statement to me is almost like saying the woman who walks to her car at night and gets raped shouldn't have been walking to her car alone.

There is a bit of a point there, and possibly I don't lead quite such an exciting life as some. However, I say this from the perspective of someone who is licensed to carry a concealed handgun in my state, but does not do so. The reason being, in the normal course of business I do not feel sufficiently at risk to go to the trouble, and in the event that I felt sufficient unease about a situation to arm myself in advance, it would be better to choose not to go there. However, the difference in this case is that a firearm is deadly force, which this thing isn't -- but I don't think that's an improvement.

We need to teach males to control themselves and how to deal with the emotions that lead them to rape in the first place.

Yes, this is true -- particularly in the case of acquaintance incidents. Would you say in this case that an element of entitlement exists, or is it something else?

nacht

02-09-2009, 08:03 AM

The problem is related to the issue with abductions. People panic about this, and the common fear is of some stranger grabbing a young child and dragging that child into their van before driving off. These are horrific cases and they do happen, but they are very very rare.

In 2001 there were 840,279 missing persons, the vast majority of whom were under 18 years of age (only about 50k weren't). But:

- Half were runaways
- Half of the remaining were abductions relating directly to domestic or custody disputes

etc.

It turns out that only about 100 juveniles are abducted by a stranger or vague acquaintance each year from anywhere in the US. 2/3rds of those are over the age of 12.

So your 8 year old on the playground? Worry more about Uncle Freddie, your estranged spouse, or the gardener than the possibility of an abduction by a random stranger.

Similar with rape. The word "rape" encourages this concept of the most violent of the violent: women taken brutally in parking lots under cover of night. Aggressors who are so brutal that they scar those women for life--mentally at least, if not physically as well. Words like "date rape" bring up images of so-called "date rape drugs": Women being drugged against their will and waking up with only scattered memory of the evening before.

The statistics, as with many things, are somewhat fuzzier than that.

A common fallacy is confusing threat and risk. Risk involves the actual probabilities and severity distribution, threat does not. There is a threat of child abduction by a stranger, but the risk is vanishingly small.

It makes sense to guard against the largest risks, while not living in fear of the smallest ones. Protecting against the largest risks means understanding what they are and doing a cost-benefit analysis. It makes no sense to wrap up our homes in saran wrap and duct tape--for example--because the probability of dying from that is higher than the probability we will ever see an effective chemical attack that such could guard against.

So what is the mousetrap designed to protect against? The threat, or is it a proportional response to the risk?