Talk:Anti-rape female condom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Criticism

Has anyone looked into whether or not there are people who look positively at this device? It doesn't seem quite neutral as it has such a huge article on criticism and nothing about people who are for it.

[edit] Hoax?

Hoax. But discussed at BBC4: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/2005_24_tue_02.shtml --Wetman 08:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Should this article, then, be deleted, along with all references? --Dpr 06:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense that such a product would get serious development anyways, since it's pretty obvious that it would encourage all would-be rapists to do some "testing" with a hunk of wood or something. I'd say it's a hoax. But see: [1]

I don't think it's a hoax, but you're right, it probably won't work. But I have to wonder - will some women not take it off during spontaneous sex? I mean, if people are so bad about putting condoms ON before sex, then...24.64.223.203 09:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
No its not a hoax, instead of directing you to other articles just type "rapex" in google image search and you will find (among other things) many images of the device being displayed by its inventor --BerserkerBen 01:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mechanism of action

How does it work? I cannot find any detailed descriptions on its mechanism of action. It does not seem to be a spring loaded device like in the novel Snow_Crash, based on what I can see from the images (like this: http://digilander.libero.it/quicasanacci/rapex.jpg ) its simply a female condom with several rows of hinged barbs. I would guess that when the rapist sticks his eer “member” in the barbs are pushed up without being noticed but when he retracts the barbs are pulled down into him, sort of like a Chinese finger trap, but with barbs and not on a finger, the more he retracts (and faster) the deeper the barbs are impaled, the barbs seem hocked at the end in one picture so once their in they cannot come out. Well that’s from what I can tell if anyone has a better theory or actual account please tell. On a personal note this has got to be one of the most hilariously scary inventions I have ever seen, I can understand why people would think its a hoax --BerserkerBen 01:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

From the text, it simply appears that an unwelcome visitor will encounter an unexpected myriad of microperforations in his most sensitive of areas. And I agree completely on the scariness. --Kizor 20:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
From the pictures the barbs do not look micro at all, maybe ~1cm long!--BerserkerBen 02:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

As far as I have read, the thing can only be removed from the "member" by surgery.....81.201.224.13 13:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

          • Will it work?

Ive read about it in German Online Magazin "Spiegel", so i dont think its a hoax. What i've wondered about, wouldnt it encourage to rape orally and anally?? Women cant have something like that in their other openings, so i think if such a device would be out, it could backfire.

Actually it can be used in the anal region. But not the mouth obviously. Btw, the idea is by far the worst idea I've heard in a while. When a rapist finds this thing on his penix, he'll take it out his anger on the girl he just raped. It also doesn't stop the rape at all, it just screws the guy over after the damage has been done. -Lengis

Uhm...the way this thing looks...I seriously doubt anybody would be able to take his anger out on anybody with this thing in his penis. He would have to be VERY pain tolerant to be even able to walk....81.201.224.13 13:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Come on! It would ach at most, a couple of dozen cm long spikes lodge in the skin of the rapist’s ahh "violator" could not hurt that bad. Maybe a spining corkscrew like device that rapidly chewing away at it would be painful enough to cause immediate disabling of the rapist (and hopefully kill him from blood loss within minutes) --BerserkerBen 21:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

If this is not a hoax, and the marketing of the product effectively convinces many women to use this device, it would then become standard practice for potential rapists to probe victims violently with various objects (to ensure that the device is removed) before proceeding with his own penis. Jimworm 11:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] edit

Removed redundant and needless links 68.239.206.10 21:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


So, who thought it was OK to link this to a comic book about a condom that bites off penises? This may or may not work, but it's clearly a serious attempt to deal with a serious problem.


I recently got a warning for my supposedly vanadalous behaviour on wiki for trying to delete the link to killer condom. I thought that was what this was all about. Would somebody mind posting here how I can contribute to this article by deleting an unnecesery (and, let's face it, offensive) link without wiki threatening to kick me off? -C

Well sign up a account that way messages for a general ip address will not be given to you. --BerserkerBen 14:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV dispute

This article seems to favor the idea that the manufacture and/ or use of this condom is not a positive idea. It includes negative criticism of the device (that it may be ineffective, harmful to potential victims, and myth based) but not the opposing [read: positive] view.

The article is also factually incorrect in implying that the victim who inspired Ehlers referenced the vagina dentata myth. She merely indicated that she "wished she had teeth down there." For instance, I'm not referencing the bible if I say "I wish I could come back from the dead." While a similar thing did occur in the story, it was not specifically referenced by anyone. This inference seems geared at implying that Ehlers was inspired by fairy tale rather than science or compassion, making her idea seem less credible.

Lastly, the article references (somewhat randomly) the Killer Condom comic/ movie which doesn't seem to serve much purpose other than to further attack the credibility of this idea.

The vagina dentata concept, then? --Kizor 04:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ineffectiveness of anti-rape condoms

After reading many arguments, I don't think that anti-rape condoms would be very effective at all, due to the following reasons:

  1. attackers would become aware of the product and begin checking their victims before committing their crime
  2. the device would make the attacker very angry, which may prove fatal for the victim
  3. unless the condom removal procedure involves advanced hospital equipment, then attackers would find ways to remove these condoms themselves
  4. there are some substances that will dissolve latex but will not harm flesh - petroleum jelly is one example

Perhaps these points should be noted in the article? --Ixfd64 03:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing the condom would be vary painful and cause considerable damage and the condom is like a female condom and is made of plastic not latex. Besides that I see the other points as relevent--BerserkerBen 02:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Why does this page link with tree spiking? If no one objects, I'm removing the link from both pages. Gimme danger 04:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Rape-ridden South Africa"

I removed the text "rape ridden". It's unfair to characterise South Africa as rape-ridden; does it have a higher level of rape than its neighbours?

yes it is.

[edit] FDA Approval?

It will be interesting to see what the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does with this device. The standard is that it has to be "safe and effective." Does anyone have any idea how hard clinical trials are going to be?,no pun intended. The inventor says on her website that it has been "tested." Has anyone seen any published research yet? Or is all of this a huge HOAX? One has to wonder. T.E. Goodwin 08:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I've Been Following This Closely Since it's Announcement Last Year

I just put some statistics from Human Watch South Africa on the page. Granted they are from 1995 but they adequately portray South Africa as a country that has a high incidence of rape, relative to the rest of the world.

Also, the invention is real, has a trademark, which I also included, and it's own website which is all on the page now.

I have asked to upload an image of the device and am waiting for approval.

As far as effectiveness, there are people on both sides as well as ones who don't really know.

It has never been tested on a real man due to lack of research subjects and ethical reasons.

As a woman and feminist, I have my own ideas about it but I think it would be best to allow me to finish my revisions, as I have many, and I will deal with the pros of the device. I have made it clear that the media response was negative in general but there are other groups who DO stand behind the invention. OneWomanArmy923

If the hype is true then surely by now a rapist has been ... 'got' with one of these. That will be the real test, what happens when someone is. Also whether they are actually safe to have in. Does the lack of nerve endings in the vaginal wall mean that a broken one would have to be pulled out along with a chunk of flesh before the wearer realised it had embedded into her instead?
81.178.231.100 18:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Female condom?

I feel like the claim of STD and pregnancy protection has to do more with the case of rape than consentual intercourse. **Obviously** it wouldn't be used in consentual intercourse except in cases that would most definitely be construed as abuse of the device (vengeful lovers and whatnot). It does, however, make sense that the device would protect the woman from becoming pregnant or infected with an STD after being raped. --Grenadier 00:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

True, but the device offers no more protection against STDs and pregnancies by stopping rape than any other measure that stops rape — less barbaric self-defense methods (e.g. pepper spray), increased police activity, etc. The claims seem to imply that it protects against STDs and pregnancies as something like a normal male condom for consensual intercourse does, but since there's no medical testing that has been done on the device — or, indeed, testing of any sort other than on dildos and things of that nature (really, who would be crazy enough to volunteer as a tester?) — it's completely hearsay as to whether or not that's true. --HarmonicFeather 02:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, if the device is airtight like a femidom, why should it not then protect against pregnancy and STD'S?The.valiant.paladin 03:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
First of all, we don't know that the device is airtight at all, because it hasn't had any sort of objective testing done on it. Secondly, it's important to consider that "airtight" may not be enough — many things that appear to be solid are actually very porous to viruses, sperm cells, and other microscopic organisms. --HarmonicFeather 05:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Is viruses smaller than air molecules? I didn't know that...Regardless, you're right that it haven't been tested as such, but if it's as airtight as a femidom I think it's safe to assume that it protects as good as a femidom. But the current (my revised edition) wording seems to be the most reasonable. Either way, the article is grossly skewed towards a negative bias of the device, and that needs to be fixed. The.valiant.paladin 17:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Your current wording looks fine. To answer your statement, many "airtight" surfaces are actually somewhat porous and can leak small amounts of gas over time, and some of the particles that make up air are larger than some viruses, bacteria, and other organisms. Since I haven't seen any reports that the device has been tested scientifically by a third party, Ehlers' claims are just that: claims. Furthermore, you'll note that she doesn't even claim that it's viable as a true contraceptive, just that it prevents pregnancy/STDs by preventing the rapist from continuing. As for the article's bias, I don't see it necessarily as a problem. I haven't seen any positive reactions to the device other than Ehlers' statements about it, while I have seen an inordinate amount of reactions against it, for a whole variety of reasons. An article doesn't have to fabricate support for something if it really isn't there — to do that would be presenting a POV. If something is genuinely and almost universally detested, then to portray it as such is neutral. --HarmonicFeather 22:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Allright, I'll try to poke around and se if I can find anyone notable defend the device - If not, the article as it is will do fine (although I might do some trimming on all of the negative responses). I do hope that someone more skilled in the art of debating than Ehlers take up the cause of defending potential rape victims right to defend themselves with any means they have. A lot of the arguments against the device is fallacious and could be applied on any defense rape victims might use, but unless someone more important than me says it the article is good enough. The.valiant.paladin 23:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Why remove some of the criticism? I could see rearranging it somewhat and consolidating similar criticisms into individual paragraphs, but you shouldn't just remove sections, since the summary of the criticism as a whole reflects the degree to which people oppose the device. I also disagree with your assessment that much of it is fallacious. The concern that it could put women in more danger due to the potential rapist being enraged is true; the possibility that vindictive women could abuse the device to injure or frame innocent men is also there; the fact that the device — unlike conventional self-defense means such as pepper spray — is barbaric and grossly cruel is also true. The fact of the matter is that no one, not even rapists, deserves to be injured the way that this device would injure people. There are plenty of ways of preventing and stopping rapes without resorting to the mindset of the dark ages. --HarmonicFeather 23:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, any kind of self-defense attempted by the potential rape-victim might enrage a rapist.A kick to the groin hurts like hell, mace hurts like hell, and all of that will either scare the rapist off or enrage him further. So unless you think a rape-victim should remain completely passive and just be raped out of fear the she might get hurt, any kind of resistance will provoke one of the two reactions.That the device should be more "barbaric" than other means of self-defense escapes me. Any kind of defense put up by a rape-victim might seriously hurt the rapist. What if she gorges out one of the rapists eyes with her nails? Crushes his testicles with a brutal kick? What if she shoots him, and he dies from the wound? Would you consider these methods of self-defense "barbaric", and would you advise women to let themselves be raped instead of defending themselves with one of these methods, if need be? Would you let yourself be raped, if you only could defend yourself with one of these methods? If you stick your hand into a bees nest to get honey, you're going to get stung. Yes, the device might be used as a tool for revenge. The same holds true for any tool of selfdefense, such as pepper spray, a knife or a gun. If a woman abuses the device in such a way as to get revenge, she will be punished just as if she'd used a gun, a knife or pepper spray to get revenge.
Regarding the section with the critisism, I think that some of it could be shortend, and some of it is just repetition. After rereading the section a couple of times, I can't see how I can make the writing any better. The.valiant.paladin 02:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, obviously anyone who tries to stop a rapist will probably make the rapist angry. This goes for male rapists as well as female rapists. I think the criticism of this device in particular is that it would probably anger the rapist while he was still right next to the woman and could easily injure her. Furthermore, pepper spray or a kick to the groin have at least been shown to usually debilitate an attacker for a brief period of time. There's no evidence that this device would be painful enough to stop the rapist from lashing out in rage.
Obviously I don't think that rape victims should sit passively by, and if a woman is being attacked by a rapist, obviously I think that she should defend herself to get away. However, as this article outlines, the device offers no visual deterrents, which means that the rapist would not know that the woman was wearing the device (which would itself be a deterrent to rape), and furthermore, the device causes excessive harm for what it tries to accomplish. I do not think that rapists should be subjected to excessive and cruel treatment. They are people too, and however deplorable their acts against their victims are, they still deserve humane treatment. Does this mean that I am opposed to any form of self-defense that could cause harm? No. This means that I am opposed to forms of self-defense that cause harm when there are far better proven alternatives available that do not. This device carries a significant risk of causing severe and permanent damage. Government policy changes, better policing, better education, stronger economies, better health care, pepper spray, tasers, martial arts training, etc. do not. Should potential victims try to stop their attackers? Of course. Should devices be marketed that seek to cause excessive pain and damage? Absolutely not.
I find that your claims that a woman using the device maliciously would face repercussions are highly dubious. Consider this: the device is marketed to stop rapes. Imagine that a man goes to the hospital with this device gouging holes in his penis. He tells the doctors that his girlfriend asked him to have sex with her, but was wearing the device, and that as soon as his penis was caught, she laughed at him and told him that it served him right for being a man. Meanwhile, his girlfriend has called the police and complained that the man attempted to rape her. Who will the court believe? --HarmonicFeather 03:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Any competant court will consider the evidence and testimony of all sides, the same as they do even now for rape accusation cases. There are already women who accuse their boyfriends of rape under dubious circumstances, and sometimes the court favor goes to them, and sometimes they do not. It's an ugly scene. I do not deny that the introduction of this item could make it uglier, but I don't think that in and of itself is an objection. One must also consider the possibility that a woman who was genuinely raped and identitied her attacker through this device might be decided against in court, and countercharged for assault (which is what I assume this would be.) No legal system is perfect.

[edit] debate over criticism

I'll state from the start that I do not fully support this device, but I feel that all sides of the issue should be examined and debated. I've seen a number of criticisms put forward that don't, to me, fully seem to pan out, and I think they should be addressed. 1. This device will not work because once they know about it, rapists will simply 'test' with a finger or an object before insertion. I actually doubt this. The creator's assertion that men "loose their senses" aside, there's no reason to think that most rapists would assume a woman was wearing this device unless she outright told him so. Some rape crimes, like some murders, are crimes of passion in which no forethought is involved. Some are not, but even in those cases the rapists rarely if ever stop to think about the consequences -- even the extremely immediate consequences. It's in the nature of most criminals to assume they won't be caught. However, it's worth considering that for the exact same reason, the presence of this item on the market would likely not significantly affect the rape statistics, the same way that the death penalty does not significantly deter crimes which carry that penalty. Most criminals assume that the penalties won't apply to them, if they think about it at all. 2. This device would endanger women by escalating the violence of the situation. I do not hold this argument valid because it can be applied to any form of self defense: pepper spray, tasers, martial arts. To argue that women should not defend themselves for fear of escalation is also making the argument that women are obliged to lie down under this kind of treatment, and that if they are injured, the blame falls on them. I do not think one can assume that this device would be more likely to cause escalation than any other device, or that all rape situations are logical and predictable. 3. This device should not be used because of the potential of permanent harm on the rapists, or because it is inhumanely painful. It's certainly true that this is a risk and a concern, but again, it's not limited to this device only. Pepper spray, for example, is also excruciatingly painful, and carries the risk of blindness if not properly treated. Tasers are also excruciatingly painful. Even simple self defense carries the possibility of permanent disfigurement or even accidental death: a kick to the groin is perfectly capable of rendering a man impotent, and smashing anyone's face into a brick wall or pavement could disfigure or kill them. I am not particularly moved by the implication that damage to the genitals is inherently more horrible or risky than damage to any other body part. I'd have to see some proof that the physical risks from this device are greater than the risk from any other self defense device. 4. The device could be misused by malicious women and then used in support of a false rape charge. It would take a particularly cruel mind to want to misuse this device casually, which does not, of course, mean it wouldn't happen. The issue of false rape charges and their defendants is one we are already having to deal with. But any competant court of law will examine both sides' statements and evidence before rendering judgement, and there would, as people have pointed out, be assault countercharges to deal with if the court decided in favor of the man. 5. This device should not be used because it is inherently barbaric, medeival, regressive, inhuman, etc. I cannot argue against this statement as it's entirely subjective, for each man or woman to decide for themselves. However, I will say that women at risk in different places and different situations should have the right to decide for themselves whether or not they have moral qualms and objections to it before using it.

I would simply prefer to allow the device to be used and study its effectiveness and complications if any when they happen, rather then argue points without any actual data. wikipedia is nota debate forum then again everyone debates on wikipedia, so here goes. 1. I agree, though I would like to see a statistical study verify that. Most statisical result concludes that capital punishment does not deter murder. Then again rapex is not capital punishment, we will have to wait and see if rapist get smart of not. 2-3. Pepper spray and tazer have a well established history of effectiveness. Pepper spray being a automatic muscle contracten: there is virtually no way that someone sprayed could resist it. There is some evidence that people can resist tazers. These self-defense systems usually allow victims to escape, without allowing the criminals to counter attack. There is no evidence yet that rapex will be able to effectively debilitate a rapist, we will just have to wait and see. By the way I have not seen evidence that pepper spray causes permanent blindness. All weapons no matter their intended level of lethality, have the ability to cause harm; the important part is that ability varies with the weapon. For example tazers and pepper spray are not nearly as likely to cause permanent harm or death as a gun is. Rapex has yet to be tested on a humen being, it rate of "disfigurement" is not known or even accurately estimatable at this point. 4. I have no disargeement with this. Again we will have to wait and see. 5. Again I don't disargee. I don't have a problem with you placing your counter-points on the article. --BerserkerBen 01:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

More specifically about the lack of NPOV in this article, it seems to carry a very British (or European) attitude towards the act of rape, in which the physical violation of the woman's body is downplayed, apparently because in these societies female sexuality is often regarded as a commodity (by men and women alike). Having only recently emerged from "medieval" "barbarism", it seems that their misguided development has caused them not to do away with the crime of rape, but to do away with the notion of rape as a crime. It is not surprising that this reaction comes from the people who colonized and exploited the people of South Africa. We wouldn't want those pesky anti-rape devices to get in the way of raping indigenous women, would we?

I don't think those are the motives here, if you could enlighten us on how to "do away with the crime of rape" and what would be the superior response compared to the barbarous west? --BerserkerBen 13:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Some of the criticism of the device, I feel, shows a kind of sympathy towards rapists. If more women carried guns and used them to shoot attempted rapists dead the world would be a better place. That is my opinion. Steve Dufour 03:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC) p.s. The article would be better if it was a bit shorter. Just give the facts about the thing and then the criticisms and then the outcome - is it going to be released for sale or not? As it is the same criticisms seem to take up more than half of the article.


  • More specifically about the lack of NPOV in this article, it seems to carry a very British (or European) attitude towards the act of rape, in which the physical violation of the woman's body is downplayed, apparently because in these societies female sexuality is often regarded as a commodity (by men and women alike). Having only recently emerged from "medieval" "barbarism", it seems that their misguided development has caused them not to do away with the crime of rape, but to do away with the notion of rape as a crime.


What utter, repugnant nonsense. It just goes to show you can say anything, no matter how ignorant and vile, on Wikipedia without fear of any banning order or account closure. I would argue that female sexuality is far more commoditised in the US than in Europe, and as far the accusation about only "recently" emerging from medieval barbarism, that is such obvious ignorant drivel that it deserves no further comment. Rape is a very serious criminal offence in all countries in the EU, and has been such for a very long time.Jaganath 22:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the description of the pain involved as "unimaginable" to "very severe" because the former was both hyperbole and editorializing. Most of the "pain" techniques of control are not, in fact, as wonderfully effective as their proponents claim them to be. I've taken classes in both pepper spray and CS (tear gas) and was offered the opportunity to be a guinea pig, which I accepted in both cases. They are both very painful and irritating, but if I had anything I thought needed to be done, neither would deter me other than by interfering with my vision through tearing and coughing. Granted that this was American police CS, which is typically a one percent solution, and military CS as used by some other national police forces might be more painful, it's also true that some people aren't terribly bothered by "severe pain," where others begin to whine and complain upon stubbing a toe. Likewise, many people are uniformly cheerful, polite, and relatively mobile during childbirth and kidney stones, which are reputed to involve the most pain a human can tolerate without fainting, where others just fall to pieces.

The complaint that the device isn't a "deterrent" is just silly. If one announces its presence, it's no longer any deterrent at all, but merely an inconvenience for the rapist. Likewise, one is not required to announce periodically that one holds a black belt in any of the more dangerous martial arts lest a potential attacker lying in wait be "unfairly taken advantage of." If one commits a crime, one is pretty much committed to taking the good with the bad. Sometimes one succeeds; sometimes one is severely beaten or killed; sometimes one goes to prison. Luck of the draw. Law of the jungle. Like any self-defence technique or device, surprise and pain would be a key element in any successful use. One can use such a "condom," or jab the rapist's eyes with one's fingernails orr keys; in all cases the intended outcome is to give the intended victim a chance to get away while the attacker's concentration is focused on his immediate situation. Lee-Anne 04:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Highest AIDS rate?

I'm pretty sure that's just not true. Last I remember, South Africa's HIV rate was in the teens, and Botswana's -- e.g. -- was nearly 40%. I think it's true that South Africa has a higher raw figure -- there are more people with AIDS in South Africa than in any other country -- but the 'rate' is lower.

Since I don't think the raw figure is relevant, and if it were included it would be misleading, I'm removing the assertion pending fact-checking. (The cited reference doesn't refer to the AIDS statistic) 129.133.146.185 20:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/t/Talk%7EAnti-rape_female_condom_18de.html"