It isn't. Nobody is saying that is it. The mindset that a woman didn't do enough to prevent it if it happened, and should be blamed, however, is something of a problem.FabTails said:
Anti-Rape underwear
- Thread starter psijac
- Start date
Recommended Videos
> watches video
> uh... excuse me where are the underwear for men?
> mentions girls and women only
> oh I see >_>
Sorry but I sorta found this video sexist in that it implies only females can be raped and male rape isn't an issue.
> uh... excuse me where are the underwear for men?
> mentions girls and women only
> oh I see >_>
Sorry but I sorta found this video sexist in that it implies only females can be raped and male rape isn't an issue.
Wait are there really people who think "There is nothing wrong in rape, I need to have forced sex more often"?AnarchistFish said:
Well, besides few deviant exceptions.
Because as far as I know most people (even rapists) know that rape is bad.
Teaching "not to rape" is like teaching that sky is blue and water is wet.
I think what we actually need to teach is that there is nothing wrong in being raped.
[I know that it sounds wrongsick, but let me explain, before gathering lynch mob]
I mean if you were raped, you shouldn't hide it and don't be ashamed to inform authorities.
Someone did something horrible to you and if you don't let people know about it, rapist will do same thing to some other person- it is in your power to prevent it.
And being raped isn't the end of the world- as from any damage you will heal and return to your ordinary self (more or less)
And if someone you know was raped, ostracizing that person is unacceptable. Don't condemn him/her because he/she is a victim. Show some support dammit!
On the other hand we should also teach that false rape claims are insulting to actual rape victims and how devastating it can be to person you blame.
Also teaching people some self-control and responsible alcohol consumption is a good idea.
Seriously, do you REALLY need to drink up to the point you can't control yourself and can't remember a thing next morning?
Because there is a chance you agreed/offered to have sex, but simply can't remember it (in this case claiming rape isn't fair)
Of course there is same chance that someone simply exploited your condition.
And yet again it is possible that you were drugged by someone.
So to summarize, instead of teaching "not to rape", more productive would be teaching:
1)not to condemn rape victims
2)to don't be afraid to report actual rape
3)to make sure it was actual rape before reporting it (at least ask your friends about what happened)
4)that if you suspect you were drugged don't hesitate to go to police- the sooner you get tested the better
5)that being raped isn't the end of your life
Although I suspect that most of things I wrote are same "water is wet" lessons :/
There are already much more extreme (not that thats a bad thing at all) anti rape products on the market, one of which, the Rapeaxe, seems particularly effective. I believe it was created by a South African inventor who stated that she wanted to create "a medieval device for a medieval act." It's essentially wearable vagina dentata, and when the rapist tries to violate the woman it's teeth will clamp on the shaft. It's made to be incredibly, mind-numbingly painful, in order to allow the victim to escape, and only possible to be removed at a hospital where the rapist can then be taken into custody.Redlin5 said:
So yeah, we already have some products like this and honestly I say more power to them. And last time I checked we didn't live in a civilized world, we live in a world where 1 in 4 women's first sexual experience involves some form of coercion, forceful or otherwise.
Not true...or at least, most rapists know that rape (in a vague abstract form) is bad, but not that what they do is rape. There's always some excuse for why the rapist was entitled to sex, and so it wasn't really rape.blackrave said:
Well...yes...but you seem to have gone and put responbilities on victims there. If they don't want it known, they shouldn't be blamed for that.blackrave said:
This is the essential point. No point telling victims they don't need to keep quiet when everyone else ensures that they do.blackrave said:
For this to work, though...we have to acknowledge that anyone can be a rapist (or rather, that there's no way of telling if someone is or is not). If a rape is reported, and the perpetrator comes from a good family, has no other criminal history...doesn't mean they aren't a rapist.
Also, it's essential that the police and legal system care about reported rapes. Currently, this really is not the case in much of the Western world. This is one of thee reasons people are frightened to report, because they are put on trial, they are blamed for causing the problem and making other people look bad.
EDIT:
About this...look, I certainly understand what you mean, a false rape accusation is quite a nasty thing. However, in reality, they are exceedingly rare. They are exceedingly common in popular consciousness, however, they are used to dismiss and discredit rapes all the timeblackrave said:
When you say "actual rape"...an awful lot of people have a very wooly understanding of what that is, including many actual victims.
For example, hordes of people fell over themselves to defend Polanski. Sure, he'd drugged a 14 year old girl and sodomised her, but it wasn't "rape rape" (actually said about it), because she'd agreed to go to the house with him, because Sharon Tate had been murdered, because he'd lost his family to the Holocaust, or any other reason.
A lot of people somehow believed that drugging and raping a 14 year old girl isn't "actual rape".
I agree on everything you said
Except this part
If not, then when next victim will be hurt, at least partially you will be responsible too.
There is nothing in that case that implied that she agreed.
That was rape without any of grey area.
Now that girl has grown up and overcame that rape, she doesn't want for Polanski to be prosecuted anymore (at least that is something I remember reading).
I call bullshit on that.
By same logic fucking babies is also ok, they will eventually grow up and won't remember anything after all. No harm done, right?
.
.
.
Ok, I'm becoming emotional again, so I'll stop
Except this part
I personally am convinced that if you can prevent something, you should at least try.thaluikhain said:
If not, then when next victim will be hurt, at least partially you will be responsible too.
Yeah, that... Thank you for ruining my shower that I took 2h ago, because I feel like I need another one.thaluikhain said:
There is nothing in that case that implied that she agreed.
That was rape without any of grey area.
Now that girl has grown up and overcame that rape, she doesn't want for Polanski to be prosecuted anymore (at least that is something I remember reading).
I call bullshit on that.
By same logic fucking babies is also ok, they will eventually grow up and won't remember anything after all. No harm done, right?
.
.
.
Ok, I'm becoming emotional again, so I'll stop
I certainly understand your point, but as it stands, condemning victims for not reporting rapes is one of the things regularly done to attack victims.blackrave said:
Certainly, in theory it'd be better if every victim reported it, but we can't expect that until the societal problems facing people who report them are removed first. Having said that, I have huge respect for people who are open about being sexually abused, but they will receive a lot of flak about it.
I meant that victims are often condemned for not coming forwards, or for giving up on accusations. If a victim retracts an accusation because it's too difficult, it's taken as evidence that they were lying about the crime. Likewise, if they don't make the accusation right away.blackrave said:
What you're saying is of course not wrong. But we mustn't forget the context either, where the blame is often shifted to the victim all too easily instead of the attacker. That's why I think stuff like that is sending mixed messages.FabTails said:
That's not strictly true. It varies from place to place but a general rule of thumb is that if a layperson who sees the pitch comes away with a belief about the product (in this case, that these garments will prevent rape), then there exists potential for lawsuit should it fail to work. In order to combat this, they'd have to include an explicit statement that qualifies just what they expect the garment to do - that is, they'd have to say something to the effect of "This product will not prevent rape".evilthecat said:
Their claim appears to be that its intention is to be resistent. They are no more liable for it happening than flame "resistent" material is responsible if someone manages to get it to catch on fire. Resistent =/= proof. Resistent is a legal term than has actual legally explainable ramifications. If a product says resistent and is not any more resistent than comparable product (I imagine this to be slightly more resistent to being pulled off than regular clothing) or if a product is actually less resistent then we have a liability issue. We have seen cases where flame resistent material burns even easier than other materials in its class and so the company was sued out of business.Eclectic Dreck said:
I strongly doubt this material would work even a little bit though. Anymore than really tight underwear would. Maybe it'd protect people from really weak assailants. It's fun to watch the video show people lightly tugging at the sides but this just seems incredibly unlikely.
If it did work, however, then I would completely contest the notion that this somehow sends the wrong messages. I wear a cup in some sports because I don't want to get hit in the balls. But if I don't wear a cup, it isn't my fault if someone hits me there. It's the person who is hitting me who is at fault. Taking precautions and the ability to take precautions does not impact the fact that another person broke the law and is assaulting you. What a terrible falacy. Taking self defense and not accepting drinks from strangers in a bar without seeing them being made and wearing resistent material if such is ever made are just taking precautions. The mindset that the existence of precautions means people who don't take them are less of a victim is just as ridiculous as the mindset that skimpy clothing somehow makes a woman more "deserving". It only sends the wrong message if you're the kind of person who would think that.
The fault is and will always be on the side of the person who decides to take advantage of the situation and break the law. You could walk around naked in a bar drunk and it still wouldn't be your fault if someone raped you.
Of course, I was remiss in not including it in the first place. The infamous 1 in 4 statistic comes from a 2009 survey of South Africa conducted by Amnesty international. They also found that a quarter of South African men had admitted to rape at least once, with roughly half of that number admitting to multiple rapes. I should have absolutely been more specific with regards to that statistic. Apologies for not including a proper citation but the survey overview is pretty easy to find. Also RAINN has released statistics based on it's own surveys specifically regarding American women and that number is 1 in 6 women, and refers to women who have been victims of attempted or completed rape. For men it's 1 in 33, which is still rather shocking I'm sure you'll agree.dunam said:
These statistics are unbelievable because they pertain to an unbelievably cruel act, one I've experienced firsthand. Generally I've found that people who haven't been victimized in this way tend not to think about rape in any realistic terms, which is fine, they shouldn't have to, it's not something that you should go around thinking about. Anyway I hope this post was informative, and yeah, there are a lot of bullshit statistics floating around regarding rape, the fuckheads over at the MRA rallies spread misinformation about the severity and frequency of rape as a societal issue. Basically I'm saying good job asking for sources.
And actually according to statistics roughly 66% of women who are raped are done so by people they know quite well; 46% by a person the woman is in love with, 22% by a person they "know well".evilthecat said:
Also, 50-63% of rape is committed against people under the age of 18
Also most rapists are under the age of 30.
So typically or I suppose I should say statistically, rape is a crime perpetrated by a man under the age of 30 against a girl under the age of 18 whom the girl is in love with. The further from those circumstances a person is, the less likely they are to be raped.
We have this fiction in western society of random people, crazed serial "somethings" coming out of nowhere to do use harm in some way, but that's rarely the case, most violence in general is committed by people who are well known to the victim. This goes for murder, assault and rape, violence is most often a product of emotional and empathetic failure in interpersonal relationships.
Magic underwear just distracts from that cause, if you want a society free of violence and rape you need a society that is educated emotionally and that is where we consistently fail as a society, in that emotional education.
Exactly...to add to that, I'd also point out that it's a very dangerous fiction. Because everyone "knows" that rape is something that happens when a stranger grabs a woman (who is somehow at fault anyway) in an alley, if it doesn't happen like that, it's somehow not really rape.Do4600 said:
1. Physically being a woman was the criteria in your original post as to who was in fact in the know on how prevalent rape was. Not people with facts and those who've done unbiased research into the subject, but those who are physically women and in fact have a vagina. Your at odds with yourself in your own post. I was pointing out the absurdity of that being the criteria for being knowledgeable on rape, not the vagueness of gender identity.norashepard said:
2. I don't have stats, and if it turned out that this was a huge deterrent and wasn't just capitalizing on rampant fear mongering, I'd be the first to correct myself. It's a matter of being skeptical of anyone who comes out to solve a new crisis with the most recent form of snake oil. Your better off immediately questioning something's legitimacy in this kind of situation then giving the benefit of the doubt.
3. This is deliberate naivety. Most serial rapists are sociopaths, who both know and do not care that they are hurting others. Rape is not usually a one time thing people do and are immediately ashamed of. People at least in the west are told every week that rape is wrong. Those who practice violence against women are some of our culture's most evil villains. There is a trope called rape is a special kind of evil. Culturally these do not exist in a place where rape is in any way common place or accepted. The fact that sexual predators exist is a sad FACT of nature, and you cannot remove evil people from the world entirely. People who force and coerce sex are -predators- who know what they are doing, and often feign ignorance to evade repercussions.
-Two drunk people bumping uglies at a party is not rape.
-A man drugging a woman deliberately and having sex with her at a party is.
One is the act of two people getting drunk and making bad decisions while drunk.
The other is the act of a single person making a concerted effort to abuse another. A planned move that didn't happen spontaneously and no amount of hard to remove clothing would deter someone with that kind of investment.
Sociopaths and predatory people exist within our society and no amount of education will deter them from their actions. The only thing that really can be done is bringing people to justice for crimes and doing your best to prevent crimes.