Weaver said:
I think anyone can see the two obvious faults with it
1) You probably don't want a rapists penis bleeding in your vagina. If he had aids I feel like that would raise the infection rate even higher (not really sure on this though, I'm sure someone could enlighten me).
2) If someone's a rapist I have to assume they're a violent, unstable, and disturbed individual. If you cut up his dick, do you think he's just going to say "Well that's unfortunate" and walk away? No, he would probably turn violent in other ways that may lead to physical assault or even murder.
3) I don't think women really want to pay for and walk around with an inserted bear-trap diaphragm (which I imagine would be one time use) every single time they leave the house. Rape is a terrible thing. However, unless you're in a statistically significant area this seems like an uncomfortable and expensive precaution. It's like walking around with bear spray in in downtown Tokyo in case you run into a bear.
The reason this likely works is because it's an illegal mafia protecting prostitutes. If someone hurt one of the girls I'm sure they'd end up in a ditch somewhere.
Why didn't you read the article?
1) It's not supposed to break the skin, and even if it did the whole thing is a fluid barrier ensuring that his blood wouldn't come into contact with her.
2) You have obviously never seen a man get hit in he privates, nor did you read the article. The thing is supposed to cause debilitating pain and need to be removed surgically. The pain distracts and incapacitates him long enough to let the woman escape, and when he shows up at the hospital he gets arrested. While there certainly are very high pain tolerance individuals who would simply become violent, it is not going to be the norm.
3) She marketed it for South Africa, often called the rape capital of the world. It doesn't get more statistically significant. She also had it tested for comfort, and only recommended it for high danger scenarios such as blind dates and visiting dangerous neighborhoods. As for expense, it shouldn't be terribly expensive, it's nothing but latex and a little hard plastic.
Please read the article next time, this has nothing to do with any illegal organization, and has not yet been sold to consumers. Hell, that much was in the OP, shameful.
OT: I have reservations. For one, if it is made of what she says it is and works like she says it does, then you don't need surgery to remove it, you need a pair of scissors. If it doesn't puncture the skin, then you're going to have room to slip in the blade of a pair of scissors and just cut it off. Which kind of sucks, since it would work better as a preventative if the teeth pointed out, thereby making the man want to pull out, instead of potentially stopping at full insertion to keep it from hurting worse. If the teeth pointed outward, it would be a more effective way to stop rape, and it wouldn't really be any less likely to force the rapist to the hospital.
Second, this needs to be tested on a real person(which is somewhat unethical) to maker sure that it actually causes enough pain to stop him, and not just minor discomfort. It's also important to note that people have different pain tolerances, and there will be men out there who will not be incapacitated by any amount of pain, who will simply be made violent by this, and women should be warned of this.
All in all, a gun is still a much better defense. It works on everyone, it works before he shoves his dick in you, it isn't completely nullified by the rapists figuring out that anal is safe, and it works on other criminals too. It also works as a passive deterrent for others if some women are armed, and it usually works without needing to be fired.
