Yeah so... Someone made a bear trap for the vagina (Anti-Rape Device)

[SonOfVoorhees]

Just like the movie Teeth. ;-) There was a list of this on Oddee yesterday. http://www.oddee.com/item_98705.aspx

Another thing, what if girl forgets she is wearing it, its been a long day, maybe went out drinking. Goes home "Hey honey, how your day, im in a frisky mood" goes up stairs and the poor husband or boyfriends gets chopped. So sad.

Better just to give the woman a taser.

 

[Weaver]

Why didn't you read the article?

Because I didn't feel like it. I also know I don't have to because the power of 50 internet warriors on the escapist who can't stand to see anyone make the slightest misstep in understanding would come and enlighten me to the beauty of knowledge.

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.

Why didn't YOU read the OP? I know it hasn't been sold commercially because he fucking asks why it hasn't been sold commercially. My entire post, as uninformed as it was, was responding to that single point. Number 3 was specifically about challenges it would face in a Western consumer market.

Apparently now just replying to a question the OP asked in his thread is "shameful".

 

[Mau95]

Yeah, been around for ages.

I also shudder because imagine the great evil this thing could be used for? If a lass happens to be rather vindictive and plans to ensnare her boyfriend in it for cheating on her or some shit.

Seriously? The only way this could be used to harm someone is if they stick part of their body inside the woman. As opposed to a knife, say. Most women could get their hands on a knife if they wanted to injure a loved one.

I've seen a lot of the usual resistance to this, stuff like it says men are rapists and all. I think people are somehow subconsciously very threatened by the idea of men being injured if they tried to rape someone.

Now, as mentioned, the practicality of this is another issue altogether.

Actually I think people just feel threatened by the idea of cutting open someone's penis. =)

 

[Thaluikhain]

Actually I think people just feel threatened by the idea of cutting open someone's penis. =)

That too, which, in context, I find to be very disturbing.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

You know if they find a way of making it a bit more hygienic for the lady I don't think it's a bad idea at all.
Also for those complaining "But what would the rapist do next? Wouldn't he violently assault her anyway?"... here's what would probably happen.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

So gentlemen.... Ladys... what do we think?

I've just spend half an hour trying (and failing) to find a picture of something I saw in a museum some years ago - a small dagger with a U-shaped handle that was designed to fit into a woman's vagina to be used as rape prevention (ie, the rapist would get a dagger up the middle of his penis).

I can't remember how old this thing was (at least 200 years, but possible as much as 1000 years) or what country made it. I was hoping that Google could save my memory failure, but apparently without knowing the proper period term I'm shit outta luck.

So... no picture of scary anti-rape dagger. However, the point I was going to make with it is this - while I'd never heard of Rape-Axe before, the concept itself is not just old - it's ancient.

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).

Did you follow the link? The device is built into a latex female condom. Any blood would be captured by the device (just as sperm is by a regular female condom).

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.

Again, did you follow the link? The device is designed to LATCH ON to the man's penis and cause intense pain. The idea is that the man is screaming and trying to get the thing off (it requires SURGERY to remove) and is distracted for several very painful seconds. This admittedly brief distraction is mean to give the woman time to flee.

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 was designed by a South African doctor who lived in a location where rapes were very frequent. So yes, in such an area, a woman might want to walk around with it ready to go at all times. It was specifically designed for that use.

That said, it likely isn't very practical to wear for most women in fairly safe locations.

One other flaw I noticed in the design is this: it doesn't prevent YOUR rape (although it does end it early). The man has to actually force you down and penetrate you for it to latch on to him. So you, the woman wearing it, have been raped - albeit very briefly. The rape it prevents is the woman after you - the woman who doesn't get raped at all because your rapist had to go to a hospital to get the device removed and there gets arrested (because the proof is right there on his penis), convicted (same reason), and sent to prison.

The problem with this is that it basically attaches to rapist to his victim if the diaphragm isn't easily removed.

Shouldn't it slide right out? It isn't attached to the woman by anything but inertia (as I understood the article).

I've never used a female condom, but it's plastic (well, latex) so it should slide out fairly easily (or, at least, easily enough that the woman could push away and run for it).

Captcha: game is up
... captcha has a fucked-up sense of humor.

Edit:
I see I've been ninjaed. Tis the trouble of replying on page 1 to a 2 page thread.

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.

Only if the woman sees the threat coming. That is one major issue with the gun argument - if someone jumps you without giving you time to draw your weapon, then a gun is useless.

Also, if you're talking about America rather than South Africa, concealed carry laws (not to mention open-carry laws) may well prevent you from carrying a gun in locations where rape is most likely (like in the middle of a city). State laws vary widely on what is or is not allowed.

I recall this because a friend of mine had to get a Bounty Hunters license in order to be able to legally carry a concealed gun (which she wanted to do) in the state. I don't know that my friend ever captured any bail-jumpers, but she had her license and her concealed weapon.

 

[Something Amyss]

You know if they find a way of making it a bit more hygienic for the lady I don't think it's a bad idea at all.
Also for those complaining "But what would the rapist do next? Wouldn't he violently assault her anyway?"... here's what would probably happen.

Keep in mind, glibness aside, death is already fairly common in the culture that led to the "bear trap." I'm not saying she was going to get murdered anyway, but there's a lot of fatal and near-fatal rape encounters going on in South Africa.

Isnt that a slippery slope?
What is a girl is forced to wear that so that she wont go around having sex?

Oh man, you're right! If only there was some way for a girl to remove the device!

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.

Of course, action beats reaction, so aren't you just encouraging a rapist to have a gun? I mean, if you've got a rapist smart enough to figure out to use the back door, he can probably also figure out that pulling on someone who might be carrying would be safe for him.

A better "defense" remains: stop making rape cultural acceptable. Stop stigmatising women who have been raped. Therein lies an obvious flaw with the bear trap, as it's still designed for a culture that demonises a woman who was raped. But beyond that, or possibly because of it, rape is the only major crime in SA not to be on a downward trend.

 

[chadachada123]

I think anyone can see the 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).

Fun fact: The chance of getting HIV from a single time having sex is EXTREMELY low. As in, 1/1000 for receiving (unprotected) vaginal sex, but significantly more likely for receiving (unprotected) anal sex (I believe 1/150 or 1/75).

It is definitely blood, or exposed blood vessels, that increases the chance of infection immensely.

OT, as this poster and many others said, this device is a great way to get yourself killed.

 

[spartan231490]

snip

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.

Of course, action beats reaction, so aren't you just encouraging a rapist to have a gun? I mean, if you've got a rapist smart enough to figure out to use the back door, he can probably also figure out that pulling on someone who might be carrying would be safe for him.snip

You see this argument a lot in the gun control debate, but it's just not supported by the data. When criminals, even armed criminals, encounter someone with a firearm, more than 90% of the time the danger is just too high and they move on.

Firearms are the most effective means of self defense.

As to your comments about rape culture: you're right, of course, but that doesn't mean that you should forget about trying to protect individual women from attacks just because that doesn't stop the root cause. You need to do both, protect individuals andchange the culture.

 

[William Ossiss]

So... They reinvented the chastity belt?
Not that one that is glamourized by movies and television...
This bad boy.

Spoiler

I call 'Simpsons did it' shenanigans.

Argh... Ninja'd!

Nice thought I guess (nice may be the wrong word...), but flawed. I'll stick to ye olde chastity belt for now!

Spoiler: Such a decorative and comfortable devise!

 

[Callate]

If used by a few women, it might lead to some rapists who won't rape again. I suppose that's a good thing, although as has been noted, it would seem quite likely that the discovery a rapist's would-be victim has just lodged spikes in the rapist's penis could well be fatal for the victim. Also, as has been suggested, causing the rapist to bleed in the victim's vagina is probably not the best idea; South Africa has one of the highest rates of HIV infection in the world, and indeed a cultural problem remains that some believe having sex with a virgin is a cure for HIV. The snopes article suggests that the device does not cause bleeding, and acts as a female condom, preventing such transmission, but also that it has yet to be tested on a male- I find myself more than a little skeptical.

Another problem is that if use of the device becomes commonplace (and common knowledge), it rapidly ceases being effective; it seems likely that rapists will simply start penetrating their victims digitally to check for the presence of such a device.

 

[Pseudoboss]

I'm pretty sure that something like Snow Crash's dentata would work better. Instead of it just biting at their dick, it just poisons them with some drug that knocks them out. Judging by the amount of blood in an erect penis, I'm pretty sure that it'd be pretty effective pretty fast. And there are certainly things that'll paralyze or even kill people before the rapist gets his load off at least. Perhaps you could poison the "teeth" of the device to do such a thing. If you wanted to be particularly evil, you could have it cause necrosis, that kind of damage would result in him not only not wanting to rape again, but completely unable to rape again (Oh god. . . I should probably stop now).
A dentata would is also somewhat more discrete than this thing, it's just a ring with a needle in it.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

You know if they find a way of making it a bit more hygienic for the lady I don't think it's a bad idea at all.
Also for those complaining "But what would the rapist do next? Wouldn't he violently assault her anyway?"... here's what would probably happen.

Keep in mind, glibness aside, death is already fairly common in the culture that led to the "bear trap." I'm not saying she was going to get murdered anyway, but there's a lot of fatal and near-fatal rape encounters going on in South Africa.

Rape on the other hand in Argentina comes 90% of the time with a side of death. We get a "Who raped/murdered this girl?" every month, plus an over-arching rape/murder case that tends to last all year before settling on nothing in particular. We're currently trying to figure out who raped/murdered this one girl whose body was found in this landfill. The media is betting on the doorman.

 

[Towels]

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).

The device is built into a latex female condom. Any blood would be captured by the device (just as sperm is by a regular female condom).

I concede that following the proper instructions to the product by seeking medical attention will help prevent infection and act as a convient rape-kit. Wearing such a device may encourage the victim to seek medical attention than just running away back home.

But I just want to point out we are talking about the female body here. The device may successfully capture all fluids (if its on snugly, all girls are different), but it also is drawing differnt fluids out, creating a different kind of exposure risk, and its still deep in some poor girl's vagina. The rape-kit feature is not all that great of a payoff because Hospitals already have such things. You're just trading semen for blood.

EDIT: I see now that the device is meant to wrap around the penis. If this successfully happens then I concede the blood exposure is lower than the semen exposure, but not non-existant. Blood-borne pathogens can be just as deadly as STDs.

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.

The device is designed to LATCH ON to the man's penis and cause intense pain. The idea is that the man is screaming and trying to get the thing off (it requires SURGERY to remove) and is distracted for several very painful seconds. This admittedly brief distraction is mean to give the woman time to flee.

I concede this gives the victim a fighting chance, but escape is not guaranteed. The victim is likely in a position where she has to continue her counter-attack to get away. Couple this with a concealed weapon that otherwise couldn't been readied in time, and then just maybe... But the victim may die in her counter-attack should it fail, and wearing this device locks her into this commitment. God help the poor girl if she's wearing this out on the town and is threatened by a rapist with a gun.

Deterrence from this device would be awesome.

Huh. At first I disapproved of this device, but considering the extreme environments that its used in, I have been won over. Wow. South Africa is fucked up.

But I've only been won over on the Random Aggravated Rapist scenario in dangerous parts of the world where a woman is forced to fend for herself. I still disapprove of this device's usage in safer parts of the world and blind dates. Too risky.

 

[cthulhuspawn82]

I was just pointing out how ridiculous it is to make things like this when its much more practical to just shoot the person. I honestly don't see the point any any anti-rape device that doesn't kill the rapist.

Unless, as previously stated, the rapist also has a gun, which in many cases they do. Either that or they get her into a position where she can't pull it out.

Also, why is killing the rapist necessary to stop the rape? I'll agree the gun would be just as if not more effective than this device, but I don't see how the fact that it can kill has anything to do with it. A simple shot through the kneecap or any other painful juncture would incapacitate him just fine, and give him greater things to worry about than getting it on.

There is a reason I mention fatality as a necessity for an anti-rape device. If you pepper spray a rapist you have a temporarily blind rapist, if you kneecap a rapist then you have a crippled rapist. Even if the police manage to capture him, you simply have an incarcerated rapist. Non-lethal attacks and imprisonment are only a temporary measure.

 

[Lilani]

There is a reason I mention fatality as a necessity for an anti-rape device. If you pepper spray a rapist you have a temporarily blind rapist, if you kneecap a rapist then you have a crippled rapist. Even if the police manage to capture him, you simply have an incarcerated rapist. Non-lethal attacks and imprisonment are only a temporary measure.

Because that's how the legal system is supposed to work. While lethal force is allowed in cases of self-defense[footnote]Within reason, of course: If someone deliberately pushes you in a bar, you aren't allowed to set them on fire and cut open their belly with the glass of a broken bottle.[/footnote] the reason this is allowed isn't so that the victim can play judge, jury, and executioner right on the spot. It's because things can happen, and sometimes in the struggle it gets to that point, and they don't want victims to be afraid to fight back because they're afraid of repercussions if they hurt or kill their attacker.

The point of the legal system isn't for personal revenge. If that were so, then torture would still exist and the victim and their family would be the ones allowed to mete the punishments. The legal system's first goal should be rehabilitation. If rehabilitation is not possible, then it should be to keep the person out of public so they can no longer do harm.

 

[Fox12]

Not that I have any sympathy for attempted rapists, but I can't pretend to understand the thought processes of the people who made such devices. Perhaps that's a good thing.

If I remember correctly, it was hearing a rape victim break down (possibly at a trial) and say she wished she'd had teeth down there.

Totally understandable, but it seems like a proper rape prevention devise for self defense would be preferable to a contraption that neuters an attempted rapist. I know several women who carry guns, or atleast knives or pepper spray. Not that he doesn't deserve to be neutered.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Totally understandable, but it seems like a proper rape prevention devise for self defense would be preferable to a contraption that neuters an attempted rapist. I know several women who carry guns, or atleast knives or pepper spray. Not that he doesn't deserve to be neutered.

Oh, I'd agree with that, but a lot of the resistance to this device doesn't seem to be (at least totally) based on impracticality, rather an abhorrence for the idea of damaging a penis, even if the only way it could happen is if the owner is raping someone.

...

On a related note, is everyone frightened of vagina dentata in general also frightened by the idea of oral sex?