# The Rapex



## Lisa (May 20, 2007)

From Wikipedia:



> Anti-rape female condom.
> 
> The device is a latex sheath held firm by shafts of sharp, inward-facing microscopic barbs that would be worn by a woman in her vagina like a tampon.  Should an attacker attempt vaginal rape, the penis would penetrate the latex and be hooked by the barbs, causing the attacker pain and (ideally) giving the victim time to escape. The condom would remain attached to the attacker's body and could be removed only surgically which would, hypothetically, alert hospital staff and police.



There is much criticism regading this new form of defence by women, some of which I agree with and some of which I don't.  If you are a rapist and going to rape someone, I feel no pain for you, for potentially feeling pain yourself.  However, I do agree that it could cause more harm to the rape victim and throw the rapist into a rage.

On the other hand, this weapon could be used for revenge as well, causing undo pain and suffering and marking someone as a rapist, when in fact, it was consensual.

What does everyone else think?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 20, 2007)

If front door is mined, attacker try back door.  

While a good idea in thought, if I were a rapist, I'd carry a rubber dong and use it to 'test' first. I'd probably not be gentle in doing so, which would cause more physical damage to the woman. 

I don't think this particular device will help in the long run, but cause more violent attacks.


----------



## Drac (May 20, 2007)

Bob Hubbard said:


> If front door is mined, attacker try back door.
> 
> While a good idea in thought, if I were a rapist, I'd carry a rubber dong and use it to 'test' first. I'd probably not be gentle in doing so, which would cause more physical damage to the woman.
> 
> I don't think this particular device will help in the long run, but cause more violent attacks.


 
I cannot add anymore to what Bob said except..The male (now injuried by this internal device) takes his revenge out the the wearer by inflicting a brutal beating...


----------



## Lisa (May 20, 2007)

Bob Hubbard said:


> If front door is mined, attacker try back door.
> 
> While a good idea in thought, if I were a rapist, I'd carry a rubber dong and use it to 'test' first. I'd probably not be gentle in doing so, which would cause more physical damage to the woman.
> 
> I don't think this particular device will help in the long run, but cause more violent attacks.



With regards to the front door comment, there is no way of knowing that this even exists inside a woman, so if you found it, umm..well...too late to try the back door, sorta speak.

I agree that it is a good idea in thought, it does, however, bring out some problems as you states above.



Drac said:


> I cannot add anymore to what Bob said except..The male (now injuried by this internal device) takes his revenge out the the wearer by inflicting a brutal beating...



Yes, this was mentioned in the wikipedia posting as well.  Potentially the rapist could become outraged.  The hope is that it will cause enough pain to allow the rape victim to get away from their attacker.

My question is, who would wear one?  Who ever believes there is a potential to be raped?


----------



## CanuckMA (May 20, 2007)

With the rapist already on top of, and inside the woman, how is she supposed to flee?????


----------



## Lisa (May 20, 2007)

CanuckMA said:


> With the rapist already on top of, and inside the woman, how is she supposed to flee?????



You do have a point but...

Would it not be instinct to withdraw and roll over in pain?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 20, 2007)

The idea is, once this gets out, and a few *******s get caught because of it, serious rapists will start checking before hand.  This might require them to be more aggressive, and if they find it, upping the violence another notch as retaliation.

It's not a matter of not knowing, it's a matter of thinking of checking first.  

The company marketing this is going to push the whole "stick this up there, and you'll be safe." crap.

Well, lets be blunt. To rape you, I have to attack you. It won't stop my attack. You're already going to have been attacked, stripped, possibly beaten up. And, you're still going to be forcibly violated. It won't jump out on me, I have to be inside of you, for this to work. It might make me easier to find later, but you'll still have been raped.

Oh, the risk might stop more casual and random rape, and cut back on some date-rape situations.

But the serious rapist, who stalks his prey, who lies in wait on bike trails and jogging paths...he'll have something along with his duct tape, gag, rope and knife to test for traps.  When you deal with guys who will shave all body hair, wear a condom, and rubber gloves...what's it really to spend $10 for a rubber dicky to keep from getting their gear snagged in a bastard-trap?


----------



## Drac (May 20, 2007)

Lisa said:


> Would it not be instinct to withdraw and roll over in pain?


 
I have seen videos of guys kicked square in the cubes and it stops their attack for a moment and then it resumes with more ferocity..


----------



## bluemtn (May 20, 2007)

Isn't there a possibility of the rapist bleeding (risk of aids)?  Although, I guess at that point, it wouldn't really matter...


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 20, 2007)

Lisa said:


> From Wikipedia:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Thre was a recent "Family Guy" episode. Lois the wife became the Mayor to clean up the local lake from pollution. No one wants a tax increase to do it. So she then says tht "Terrorists" are using the lake. So one guy from the crowd as he is throwing money towards the fronts says, "Please tell me how much money before I can feel safe again".

This device is about feeling safe somehow. Not being a female I cannot understand how one feels about or fears such an event. Or how far one will go to feel safe. So please excuse my maleness and lack of understanding. 

From what I have read Rape is not about Sex but about violence and comincance and control. So if the person involved is there for violence then this device while having the possibility to slow them down, it has the option of making it much worse in my opinion. (* Not trying to say the beating is worse than the mental trauma already experienced, and not trying to compare the two, but the comment refers to physical damage could/would be worse. *) 

As to a woman who is about to file for divorce or someone else who is mad, they can state they have a new device they want to try, and either use it inside themselves and be on top to get away easily or to apply directly to the male. (* He could be just having eyes closed as requested or anything else that the mind can thinking of to have him unable to respond. *)

Of course the same said woman could use other devices if they are determined, the only issue is that the local medical will make assumptions about the device.


----------



## crushing (May 20, 2007)

Lisa said:


> *On the other hand, this weapon could be used for revenge as well, causing undo pain and suffering and marking someone as a rapist, when in fact, it was consensual.*
> 
> What does everyone else think?


 
If a man thinks getting his car keyed by a spurned ex was bad, he should definitely beware of her suggestion of a goodbye hookup!  I think a device (weapon?) like this is more likely to be used for offense than for defense.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 20, 2007)

tkdgirl said:


> Isn't there a possibility of the rapist bleeding (risk of aids)?  Although, I guess at that point, it wouldn't really matter...


Possibly, though I don't think the average rapist worries about it. Also in theory, his blood should be contained within the device.


----------



## Lisa (May 20, 2007)

crushing said:


> If a man thinks getting his car keyed by a spurned ex was bad, he should definitely beware of her suggestion of a goodbye hookup!  I think a device (weapon?) like this is more likely to be used for offense than for defense.




This is, to me, one of the more worrisome scenarios out there.  The Rapex doesn't differentiate between consensual sex and rape.  And some guy who honestly thought he was having one last roll in the hay has to come to the hospital in severe pain to have this thing surgically removed and be thought of immediately as a rapist, when nothing further could be from the truth.  I am not saying he isn't an *******, but an ******* isn't a rapist.


----------



## OUMoose (May 20, 2007)

Lisa said:


> There is much criticism regading this new form of defence by women, some of which I agree with and some of which I don't. If you are a rapist and going to rape someone, I feel no pain for you, for potentially feeling pain yourself. However, I do agree that it could cause more harm to the rape victim and throw the rapist into a rage.
> 
> On the other hand, this weapon could be used for revenge as well, causing undo pain and suffering and marking someone as a rapist, when in fact, it was consensual.
> 
> What does everyone else think?


 
I don't think it'll make a difference.  As others have said, it might cause a decline in the short run, but that just means attackers will alter their tactics and things will be worse than ever.  Would-be attackers will either "check first", or go with more "back-door" attacks, which one might think are MORE painful and prone to long-term damage.

As far as revenge, *shrug*.  It's not like a woman can't just SAY she was raped and cause permanent damage to a guy anyway, even if he's exonerated. It would also be alot easier, as others have mentioned the departing roll in the hay, to "spill" the contents rather than use one of these and potentially risk a lawsuit for assault.


----------



## jks9199 (May 20, 2007)

Very simply, I don't think it will make any significant change.  

First -- I suspect that there won't be man women who want to use it.  MAYBE briefly, in an area where there is a highly visible serial rapist.  And, maybe, someplace like a college campus for women afraid of date rape.

Second -- you're trying to attribute reasoning behavior to an offense that is not "reasonable."  As a broad rule, rape is not about sex.  Rape is about violence.  Rape is about control and domination.  If rapists got off by sex -- they wouldn't need to go out and rape...


----------



## Bigshadow (May 20, 2007)

Lisa said:


> From Wikipedia:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There was a show on the History channel where this was one of the "devices" that came up, as one of the social experts pointed out, there are not going to be many women who are so afraid that they want to have to make the wearing and hassle of such device a daily ritual, not to mention if it were consentual, it could kind of take the fun out of the moment when the woman says "excuse me while I remove my...".  It might be a great idea but I don't think it is even remotely practical.  Might as well wear a chastity belt!


----------



## Bigshadow (May 20, 2007)

Lisa said:


> This is, to me, one of the more worrisome scenarios out there.  The Rapex doesn't differentiate between consensual sex and rape.  And some guy who honestly thought he was having one last roll in the hay has to come to the hospital in severe pain to have this thing surgically removed and be thought of immediately as a rapist, when nothing further could be from the truth.  I am not saying he isn't an *******, but an ******* isn't a rapist.




Oh and what about the "Oops sorry hon, I forgot to take it out... I am sorry" :rofl:


----------



## MA-Caver (May 20, 2007)

Someone needs to tell these well intended morons that there's a *hellva lot more* to rape than forcible vaginal intercourse. No amount of pain inflicted upon the attacker is going to ease the black eyes, bruises on various points of the body, the humiliation, the fear, shock and shame. 

Likewise there are vindictive women out there and there are women who would be so cruel to feign forgiveness and offer make-up sex and... well you know. 

Likewise how do they guarantee the woman's safety? Can they be sure that a woman won't get a defective one? 

Who would issue it out? As mentioned earlier what woman KNOWS she's gonna get raped? If she's been previously threatened or is legitimately stalked then perhaps yeah as a precaution.


----------



## Lisa (May 20, 2007)

Doing some research on the inventor of Rapex, *Sonette Ehlers, *you find a story of a medical researcher who, was inspired after meeting a traumatized rape victim who said "I wish I had teeth down there"

Ms. Ehlers invented the Rapex because of the alarming rate of south african women who fear rape in a country with the worlds worst sexual assault record.  

So I sit here and think.  If I lived there and I feared for my safety day in and day out and for the safety of my children, I perhaps wouldn't be so quick to discount this device as medievil and crude.  I may just be fitting my children with one for their protection.  Its sad but true what fear will bring you to do to protect yourselves and your loved ones.


----------



## MA-Caver (May 20, 2007)

Lisa said:


> Doing some research on the inventor of Rapex, *Sonette Ehlers, *you find a story of a medical researcher who, was inspired after meeting a traumatized rape victim who said "I wish I had teeth down there"
> 
> Ms. Ehlers invented the Rapex because of the alarming rate of south african women who fear rape in a country with the worlds worst sexual assault record.
> 
> So I sit here and think.  If I lived there and I feared for my safety day in and day out and for the safety of my children, I perhaps wouldn't be so quick to discount this device as medievil and crude.  I may just be fitting my children with one for their protection.  Its sad but true what fear will bring you to do to protect yourselves and your loved ones.



Well if the chances are higher where you live that a woman/child will be raped/assaulted then maybe it is an idea... provided that would be rapists need to be aware of it. Not to help protect them but to let them know that the potential of getting a sticky condom is going to be higher once this device is spread out among the female populace... it may just deter them enough... however, anal rape is just as satisfactory to those beasts and oral rape as well. Are they going to make anti-rape devices for those orifices? 

Back to the percentages of one area being more risky of rape than another. What's the difference between say a woman walking home from the bus stop late at night from work in Brooklyn, or in East L.A. or in the seedier sides of every major city? How about those podunk towns out in the middle of nowhere that sport a bar... How about in europe? Asia? Are a woman's chances lower? Probably not.


----------



## OUMoose (May 20, 2007)

MA-Caver said:


> ... however, anal rape is just as satisfactory to those beasts and oral rape as well. Are they going to make anti-rape devices for those orifices?


They did for Oral rape... they're called teeth...




MA-Caver said:


> Back to the percentages of one area being more risky of rape than another. What's the difference between say a woman walking home from the bus stop late at night from work in Brooklyn, or in East L.A. or in the seedier sides of every major city? How about those podunk towns out in the middle of nowhere that sport a bar... How about in europe? Asia? Are a woman's chances lower? Probably not.


I dunno.  I would think someplace like Darfur or Rwanda would sport a better chance of sexual assault than New York, and certainly higher than podunk, USA.  Is it any more damaging to a woman's psyche for these assualts to happen, regardless of locale?  That I would agree with.


----------



## Kacey (May 20, 2007)

The biggest problem I see is the "it can't happen to me" theory, followed by the "locking the barn door after the horse has escaped" theory.  As has been stated, the women most likely to use such a device are those who have been raped first; in addition, it could provoke the rapist (whose motivation is generally much more about pain and/or humiliation than sex) to even greater brutality.  Given the comments about 3rd world countries... maybe... but it's one of those things that _someone_ is going to have to do first, and the word would have to be spread, or it won't be a preventative... once the rape has already been started, it will be too late - only _fear_ that a woman might be wearing such a device _before_ the rape begins will prevent a rape, and once it becomes sufficiently widespread, if it ever does, would-be rapists will learn to check first, and remove the device if it is there, or use another orifice.


----------



## bluemtn (May 20, 2007)

I think it will be used more by those that have been raped before, and those that live in a high- risk area.  Personally, though I've never been in those situations, I'd rather be prepared (mentally and physically) if those were the reasons.  As I stand right now, no I wouldn't get one, but would if I lived in an area like what Lisa mentioned.


----------



## terryl965 (May 20, 2007)

It would be an attempt to try and stop alot of attackers but there will be a counter measure soon enough and that could couse even more damage to the victom.


----------



## Carol (May 20, 2007)

Bob Hubbard said:


> The idea is, once this gets out, and a few *******s get caught because of it, serious rapists will start checking before hand.  This might require them to be more aggressive, and if they find it, upping the violence another notch as retaliation.
> 
> It's not a matter of not knowing, it's a matter of thinking of checking first.
> 
> ...




I don't think he'll need the rubber dickey either.  The description says "microscopic barbs".  I can't see those barbs standing up to much.  If anything that might snag up the condom the rapist wears and make it harder to take the evidence with him...perhaps that just  means he has to put on two in stead of one.   Or perhaps he has to be wearing the rubber gloves first.  Or maybe he should just try the back door first.

My college dorm was a hotel that closed under a very dark cloud before my school bought the property.  It closed because The Boston Strangler did a lot of his dirty work there.  If the rapist is inside a woman and gets snapped by one of these, I don't understand whats to keep him from reaching for her neck because he wants to see her suffer.  That was certainly the Strangler's way of taking a power trip.


----------



## Hand Sword (May 20, 2007)

Sadists!!!! (though well deserved by those scumbags!) seriously, my first thought was "Niiice!!!" and draws a smile to my face after thinking of the initial pain, that I'm sure all of us males felt initially after reading the post.

Any stories of one used for real?


----------



## MA-Caver (May 20, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> I don't think he'll need the rubber dickey either.  The description says "microscopic barbs".  I can't see those barbs standing up to much.  If anything that might snag up the condom the rapist wears and make it harder to take the evidence with him...perhaps that just  means he has to put on two in stead of one.   Or perhaps he has to be wearing the rubber gloves first.  Or maybe he should just try the back door first.
> 
> My college dorm was a hotel that closed under a very dark cloud before my school bought the property.  It closed because The Boston Strangler did a lot of his dirty work there.  If the rapist is inside a woman and gets snapped by one of these, I don't understand whats to keep him from reaching for her neck because he wants to see her suffer.  That was certainly the Strangler's way of taking a power trip.


Yes that is true... but remember the difference between the Strangler's and say a serial rapist is that the Strangler killed all his victims. A rapist or a serial rapist will keep his victims alive so that he'll be "remembered" by them or for whatever reason. 

The device like I said has good intentions but it's still not going to get rid of all the (other) things associated with rape.  I would not be in favor of it and would rather promote preventative rape measures and self-defense classes for women to empower them. A woman that fights back can destroy the "fantasy" that a rapist has built up in their mind before-hand. There are very VERY few that just spontaneously go out and "rape the first woman they see..." though they are out there. Most perps would pick out a victim before-hand (also remember that a large percentage know their victims and vice-versa) and build up to the moment, build up a fantasy as to how it would/should go and then stalk their victims and/or wait for the proper moment. 
Any changes in their scenario will just burst the bubble (so to speak) and they'll either leave or at least stop long enough so that the would be victim can get away.... while hopefully he's writhing in pain on the ground. 
A woman, (IMO) should not have to be subjected to everything that happens before the actual penetration so that the device will work it's intended purpose. She shouldn't have to be subjected to being taken by surprised and possibly being beaten, held against her will until she's taken to the predetermined spot, shouldn't have to be subjected to the fear build up that undoubtedly goes on before her clothes are removed and so forth. This device will work only after all of that happens. All of that I'm sure is just as traumatic as being forcibly entered.


----------



## Carol (May 20, 2007)

MA-Caver said:


> Yes that is true... but remember the difference between the Strangler's and say a serial rapist is that the Strangler killed all his victims. A rapist or a serial rapist will keep his victims alive so that he'll be "remembered" by them or for whatever reason.




The Boston Strangler was indeed a serial rapist.  He raped the women first, then strangled them...often using the women's own nylons to do so.


----------



## BrandiJo (May 21, 2007)

i wouldnt wear one... i do not fear that i will be raped eaither. Maybe if i lived ina country where it was common and expected and feared i would. But around here i feel very safe, in the USA i feel safe, i know that even if i am raped i can have my rapist captured. in other countries that is not the case (as far as iv been told). 

While i think the pain of getting snagged there would be fitting to a rapest i have to side with the others who said that every thing leading up to penatration would be just as tramatic and no female condom thing is going to prevent that. We (fem) should be taught practical self defence and empowerment and safety so to prevent and avoid the situation to start with. While it is not 100% avoidable and noone wants to think it will happen to me haveing a condom of sorts will not fix the problem, Atleast not around here.


----------



## Carol (May 21, 2007)

I read a little more about it and have a slightly different view of it now.

We're discussing rape here as being motivated by power...which it is...in North America.  However...the device was invented in South Africa where there are a lot of rapes, and the cultural reasons behind the rapes are different.

There is an urban legend going about parts of Africa that states that sex with a virgin is a cure for AIDS.  The legend seems to be particularly strong in South Africa.  

Connect the dots and the picture is very dark.  These women being raped are being raped by men who have AIDS.  If a woman wears this condom and the man rapes her without removing it...the woman at least stands a chance at not contracting HIV.   

It will be interesting to see if this has a benefit to the climate in South Africa, or if this too puts South African women at greater risk.  

BBC story about the propogation of the myth in Zimbabwe


----------



## Tez3 (May 21, 2007)

I think the problem may be too that in places where rape is endemic due to war etc these devices would be hard to get hold of and too expensive when they are found.
The rape of very young girls and babies is also thought to be a 'cure' for aids.


----------



## arnisador (May 21, 2007)

BrandiJo said:


> Maybe if i lived ina country where it was common and expected and feared i would. But around here i feel very safe, in the USA i feel safe, i know that even if i am raped i can have my rapist captured. in other countries that is not the case (as far as iv been told).



This is the key point to keep in mind. The jump-out-of-the-bushes rapist is relatively rare here (as a percentage of all rapes). But as mentioned, rape is endemic in S. Africa, where this device was developed. It occurs at an unbelievable rate, and for a variety of reasons. In addition...there's the prevalence of AIDS. The physical health cost of being raped can be very high. (This may also drive some of the assaults, due to the myth that having sex with a virgin can cure AIDS.) It's a different threat environment over there.

So, whether or not one thinks this is a useful defense, it's a different scenario over there.

From the link above:


> [FONT=arial, helvetica, geneva] About 55 000 rapes were reported in South Africa in 2005/06, along with close to 10 000 indecent assaults. Many of the latter may also have been rapes: of men, or with bottles, knives or guns -- prevailing legal definitions did not permit the &#8220;rape&#8221; label for those. If you are part of the majority population (according to Statistics South Africa, 51% of us are female), South Africa is a dangerous place to live.[/FONT]


From here:


> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] South Africa has one of the world's highest rape rates. Some 54,926 cases are reported annually, but real figures are thought to be much higher as many cases go unreported. The expanded definition of rape will likely see the statistics climb further. [/FONT]


To my mind, the device will not help until it becomes sufficiently common that people fear it as being a likely occurrence. (A woman could also be carrying a gun, but most don't, so attackers don't plan around that possibility. It would be very different if they planned to assault an armed LEO.) When it becomes commonplace, it will work briefly...then, attackers will adjust, either by finding a way to probe/test for it and possibly remove it (which could cause damage), or by changing the nature of their sexual assault to avoid the device (and forced anal penetration can have worse physical health consequences, in terms of the extent of requried surgery and the likelihood of contracting AIDS), or by "punishing" those who use it so as to  discourage the practice of using it or merely out of rage (as sometimes happens when a robbery victim has little or no cash).

I don't see it being a solution. Look to nature: Poisonous animals are brightly colored. If the predators don't know the prey is poisonous until they've killed it and tried to consume it, then the predator may die, but so does the prey. A device like this that doesn't deter the initial attack and may not stop the actual attack, especially if there are multiple attackers. Every woman must make up her own mind about what to do, but I would be unlikely to recommend this (jncluding that latex sensitivities and other issues make the idea of wearing an internal device like this all the time its own health risk).  

Of course, my first thought was "get a cell phone taser instead" but that is impractical for the poor people most affected by this epidemic of violence. An inexpensive device like this is more likely to be used by those who need it than a bank-style exploding dye pack that would mark the attackers for both apprehension by police and social appropation by those who see them.


----------

