Talk:Anti-rape device

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Criticism 2 Hoax? 3 Mechanism of action 4 edit 5 NPOV dispute 6 ineffectiveness of anti-rape condoms 7 "Rape-ridden South Africa" 8 FDA Approval? 9 I've Been Following This Closely Since it's Announcement Last Year 10 Female condom? 11 debate over criticism 12 Highest AIDS rate? 13 NPOV! 14 Does it do anything? 15 Wrongful use? 16 Citations? Anyone? 17 verifiability 18 testing 19 Does it work? 20 Legal 21 A new usage for Rapex 22 Illogic 23 RapeX vs. RapeaXe

[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. im all for it,is there a photo?

[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)

I feel that the POV of this article is neutral. It mentions both criticisms and arguments for the device. Pygmypony 21:25, 24 May 2007 (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)

• According to the official site, Rapex is made of latex. --Ixfd64 06:16, 20 April 2007 (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.

It has one of the highest rates of rape in the world, if not the highest. Bartleby (talk) 01:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Highest in the world. Their problem is pretty much the whole point of the device, and also the cause of most of the criticism (women are being forced to adapt to a constant threat of rape while the rapists go unpunished). Apparently some people editing this article aren't really following along... I tried to make this more clear. — Omegatron 00:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[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.

I'm baffled by all the folks complaining about how bad this is for rapists. Sure, it might cause lots of pain. You know what else causes lots of pain? Rape. Sure it might cause permanent damage. You know what else causes permanent damage? Rape. I'm all for treating people humanely, but this is no less humane than a swift kick to the testicles or a bullet in the chest. Or, for that matter, than rape.

[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)

[edit] NPOV!

This article is written from a remarkably biased perspective. For example, it makes no mention of how the fact that a visible deterrent is absent is intrinsically linked to the fact that the existence of these condoms provides protection to women who don't have them in place, since they cannot be seen to not have them in place. —SlamDiego 02:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's a point because if someone knows about this and is scared he will just test it.

I think it's a very dangerous device because it encourages women to not defend themselves, maybe even not saying "no" and rely on this easily avoided trap. Also it really is a 100% revenge tool, like "you rape me, i take you with me" which is a very babaric mindset to me indeed.

You don't know what barbarism is then. In any event, if there are counter arguments to the deterrence effect, produced other than as original research or theorizing by a Wikipedian, then they too should be included in the article. —SlamDiego_←T 22:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Rape is the barbarism. If anything this article is POV towards the idea that this invention is in someway bad or wrong. --Krsont 14:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup. —SlamDiego_←T 04:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Does it do anything?

I have to wonder if it's effective because in order for it to work, the woman has to be raped first... Seems counter productive to me. Why not work on education, outreach and support? Dave8904 19:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The most likely answer to this question might be that preventing rape is usually preferable to post-rape "outreach" and "support". ReformedXtian 16:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No, a woman does 'not have to be raped for it to be effective. It functions as a deterrent against at least some rapes, so long as would-be rapists know that some women have one of these in them. Meanwhile, education, outreach, and singing “Kumbaya” won't do much of anything to prevent rape. —SlamDiego 16:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrongful use?

[removed by author] Good point. My apologies.Oneoverzero 19:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not here for you to belabour your particular fears of women. —SlamDiego_←T 08:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations? Anyone?

The whole "criticisms" article reeks of original research ... There are no citations for paragraphs one, two, or four. And the language there sucks: "which adds to criticisms ...", "Some have also expressed concern ...", "Some contend that ..."

Also, the line "Necessary for this scenario is the premise that women have a predilection towards using consensual sex for physical revenge," is factually incorrect, in addition to being OR. (After all, not all women need a "predilection" towards sex as revenge for this to happen, just one woman; and she doesn't even need a "predilection" - just to get the idea at some point.

For the record, I don't think that the criticisms are necessarily wrong - I just don't think this article is very encyclopedic. Maxvip 13:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] verifiability

This alleged product was originally announced two years ago. Since then, it keeps getting back into the news every few months, based entirely on (a) quotes from Sonette Ehlers and (b) other people's opinions in favor of or against the idea. I've seen no news story that was sourced to anything other than statements by Ehlers. She has been quoted repeatedly in 2006 and 2007 as saying the product is about to hit the shelves "next week" or "next month" (the official website still says it'll be on the market in "late 2006"), but there's no evidence that the Rapex is any closer to being a reality now than it ever was. Call it hoax or vaporware or what you will, but both the invention and the "controversy" seem to be entirely media phenomena at this point.

So it's still a good subject for an article, but all we can reliably say about it is (a) someone has been talking about making this, (b) the story was widely reported, (c) several people expressed opinions about it. If that changes at some point, then the article can be expanded.

And I don't think it's a good practice to cite multiple news stories that all basically provide the same information from the same person. ←Hob 23:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Dixon, Robyn. "Controversy in South Africa over device to snare rapists", The Sydney Morning Herald, September 2, 2005. Retrieved on August 10, 2007. With quotes from the inventor, Ms Ehlers and an anti-rape activist, Charlene Smith. Why isn't there a date on that Sydney Morning Herald article? Well, the link is to the smh website, but says it was in the Los Angeles Times, written by Robyn Dixon in Johannesburg in 2005. With quotes from the inventor, Ms Ehlers and an anti-rape activist, Charlene Smith.
• Clayton, Jonathan. "Anti-rape device must be banned, say women", Times Online, June 8, 2005. Retrieved on August 10, 2007. Ah! Times Online, now we're talking. Actually, someone else is talking, Ms Ehlers again. Not to Times Online, but (supposedly) to the Johannesburg Star, written by Jonathan Clayton in Johannesburg in 2005. With quotes from the inventor, Ms Ehlers and an anti-rape activist, Charlene Smith.

What other sources are given?

• "Killer tampon" to give rapists the chop. Retrieved on November 1, 2007. It's a blog, not a reliable source.
• DedeCms. March 24, 2007. Anti-rape Device to Hit the Market. Retrieved on May 31, 2007. It's a blog, not a reliable source.
• Rape Trap Like Snow Crash 'Dentata'. Technovelgy.com. Retrieved on August 10, 2007. It's a blog, not a reliable source.
• Neva Chonin. "Vagina Dentata", San Francisco Chronicle, June 12, 2005. Retrieved on August 10, 2007. Yeah, it's in the San Francisco Chronicle. In the Entertainment section. Take a look at it, then read WP:RS. Guess what?
• Five in-line links to rapestop.net. That's not a source, that's spam.

Mdbrownmsw 04:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] testing

This just all sounds incredibly painful and impossible to test without causing long term damage for a product may never even be approved.Д narchistPig (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Does it work?

Has any man ever "worn" this device to verify that it really does what it says? What is the chance that a man will immediately be locked by the central channel, as opposed to simply sensing that there is some hard plastic object in the way and then getting rid of it?

Also, why would there be a need for surgery? I would think that the rapist, looking at the transparent device, would see that he could simply press forward to pull clear of the spines, then use some simple shim to protect himself for withdrawal, or else cut along the plastic. Wnt (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legal

I just found out about this and first, I think its great (sure its horrible that women have to take responsibility for not getting raped, but rape happens even in friendly well developed countries with generally content populaces with lots of freedoms, so do murders and muggings, alot of people walk around with a gun to prevent those, unfortunatly cops aren't everywhere, or wholly competent or trustworthy). Mostly what I'm interested in though is its legality. I know there are a lot of military laws that would make this exact kind of thing illegal in war, Hague Conventions and the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868 for instance. That is causing pain or torture, possible disease without actually killing the target. Personally I think a .357 is probably a better way to defend yourself, if the rapist is 21+ feet away and obviously going to rape you, a rather unlikely scenerio. My second interest, how much does this thing cost, or will it cost (there seems to be some doubt on its release date)? How available is it going to be compared to say a .357 Smith & Wesson Ladysmith? I know personally I can't afford to walk around with a gun (and it's illegal to in Canada, and I think our defense laws frown on killing even in defense, unless you have no other choice or something), I doubt very much that the average potential rape victim in Africa (or most parts of the world) could either. Pepper spray or a taser? I'm kinda a knife freak and a guy so I don't actually need to pick up self defense items so I'm not familiar with any of these prices but I would assume that the pepper spray is the cheapest of the conventional devices. Some more positive references would be nice too, if any exist for this ""medieval device for a medieval deed.” Also, how many rape don't become murder victims afterwards? I'm not like a murdering psychopath but I would figure that an intelligent person who doesn't want to get caught would destroy evidence, or maybe rapists aren't that cold blooded statistically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 08:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure a pointy piece of plastic would be a lot cheaper than a gun, pepper spray or a taser. Poverty is a big issue in South Africa and many other countries where rape is common.
• The latter three all require some additional training or knowledge to use, which not all women have. Most women already know how to insert a tampon, so they already know how to use an anti-rape device.
• It's much easier to convince a jury that a would-be rapist was trying to steal the cheese if he's got a mousetrap stuck to his finger than if he's just full of bullet-holes. Attempted rape (& therefore self defense) is hard enough to prove in a first-world country, let alone a country like South Africa, where a woman's word is worth a lot less.
• Defending yourself from rape is not a war crime. If "causing pain" is unacceptable, you are forcing the woman to either kill him or lay back and allow herself to be raped, which seems pretty sadistic to me.

--64.180.207.196 (talk) 08:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This article should be put into the context of HIV in South Africa - when you consider that not all men are sexually active, a woman raped there is probably being exposed to HIV. In the context of a violent rape the risk of transmission is probably also increased, though it still may be less than the risk of outright murder. It will be important if this develops for all editors to avoid a Eurocentric perspective. Wnt (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A new usage for Rapex

"take it out of the vagina and turn the device inside out and place it on his penis and then use it on the female"
Brilliant! --154.5.63.254 (talk) 09:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Not funny? Deal with it then. This horrible usage of rapex is a fact. --154.5.63.254 (talk) 07:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Illogic

A claim

No evidence has been presented that rapists in South Africa have started carrying such diagnostic vaginal stimulators.

was un-{{fact}}-tagged with an assertion

Citation is NOT needed on a negative claim.

So, let's try this:

John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama do not wash their hands after using the toilet.

Certainly a negative claim. Or how about the milder

No evidence has been presented that John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama wash their hands after using the toilet.

Really, people have some weird ideas about empirical logic. —SlamDiego_←T 15:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

To put goose and gander on an even footing (no doubt a high priority here), I also deleted the speculation that objects would be used, because this is not to be found in the source cited but only in the forum comments responding to it. It's not that I'm not skeptical (see my question above) but this is just not verifiable information, and a "dildo" seems like the last thing a rapist is likely to be carrying. Wnt (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RapeX vs. RapeaXe

There are two different web sites - one for RapeX (tm) and one for "RapeaXe" with mention that the name was changed to avoid trademark problems in Europe. But both sites show pictures of what appears to be exactly the same device! There may be something odd going on here. Wnt (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

And you can't purchase one from either site, so there is still no evidence that these things exist except in a promotional graphic. It looks like it's a large and rigid device so I imagine it would be very uncomfortable for the wearer as well as the intended victim. A neat hoax.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)