An anti-rape device puts fear into the would-be rapist. A female condom that shreds his penis.

Here's another good anti-rape device

I'd be concerned that disgruntled wives would use this as punishment for their husbands when they don't toe the line, such as getting home an hour late, going fishing without prior permission, not resisting the urge to sneak a glance at a young lady's posterior, etc. OUCH!

It could be modified so that the results aren't so terrible, but it's a good idea basically.

...or gets it taken away, or (with bad luck) shoots herself due to being in a hurry, the killer condom can be a good second line of defense.

"Critics, women included, have objected to Ehlers's invention as "medieval" and "vengeful, horrible, and disgusting" [2] and oppose its planned sale in drugstores. Others, refer to it simply as a "Vaginal Bear Trap," as it inflicts severe pain on the attacker. Since the wearer of the condom exhibits no visible signals that she is using the condom, there is no visible deterrence for a prospective attacker, which adds to criticisms that the device is vindictive. Of course, this concern for the well-being of a violent rapist has garnered even harsher responses from proponents of the device. However, the device has furthermore caused concern that it could be worn for consensual sex as part of a malicious act of revenge or outright cruelty. Others fear that use of the device would enrage the attacker and further jeopardize the victim.[3]

Although the condom is not yet on the market, men in South Africa have become accustomed to inserting their fingers into the vagina to feel around for the condom first, even before consensual intercourse. Some men have expressed new interest in anal intercourse, which is physically more dangerous, especially during rape."

Then dentata in Neil Stephenson's book, BTW, was equipped with a drug that put the guy right out rather than mangling him.  

Yes, so it does have problems. Everyone's right. One I just thought of now would be the fact that the guy would bleed, and would likely spill the blood into the vagina-- not something anybody wants with possible AIDS as the result.

Wearing it over time would have to be uncomfortable if not unsanitary.

They are getting desperate about rape in South Africa. Here, I guess, the courts might find it to be an "infernal machine" which would be illegal.

I still think it sounds like an excellent idea, and if it results in even a small reduction in rapes, then it serves a useful purpose.

But there is no doubt that the device creates problems of its own as well. The argument that the device can be seen as "vindictive" in my opinion doesn't even bear taking into consideration. I simply can't muster up even an ounce of sympathy for a would-be rapist who finds himself caught in a 'vagainl bear trap'. However, some of the points made are definitely valid - the possibility of engragin the attacker, the possibility of spreading HIV due to causing bloodshed, and the possibility that attackers may simply turn to anal rape as an alternative, which makes HIV transmission even more of a concern than vaginal rape.

So yes, there are definite concerns, but its definitely something worth considering in my opinion.

By the way, if a woman used one during consensual sex as a means of extracting revenge, I suspect she could be charged with assault and/or other charges.

She's literally FUCKED!!

 At least with a little range time every now and then she needn't so much worry about shooting herself.

 This defense recommendation from dragonfly2006 is also very handy at thwarting threats of the most heinous acts of thuggery where the condom offers no defense.

...it's an effective post-rape solution.

that whenever a device comes out that might protect women against attack, opponents always point to "vindictive" use?  The gun could be (and had been) used the same way.  Come to think of it, I seem to remember a vindictive wife cutting her husbands penis off...and nobody talked about women not being allowed to use knives.  While I agree, it presents some problem (increased attacks featuring sodomy, the presence of blood, etc), I'm left wondering why the very first arguments focus on a vindictive woman as opposed to the actions of a would-be attacker?  I think the idea should at least be considered and further study done before it is dismissed off-hand.

gun control....hitting what you aim at!  LOL

It would seem to me that they're onto something.

Prevention/punishment of Despicable acts (rape) often times means imperfect and unpleasant methods.  Hopefully it is painfull enough that when it catches the 'right' person, the woman can really escape.

I'd worry that the rapist would check & find it. Then remove & flip it inside out & punish the women with it.   And THAT would be much harder to remove.

Too bad the brain isn't in the little head.
Then if it was cut off, the rapist would no longer be a threat.

Different side of the coin:  I wonder if any S&M types have or would try this as a 'pleasure' thing??

Here's hoping it helps.

If I understand this correctly a lady would wear this when she felt she was in a situation where rape was a risk.  How many rapes happen then vs when unexpected?  What is the cost of putting it in, walking around with it and getting it out.
 If it goes on the marked I figure it will take the FDA 8 years to approve it and maybe not then.  That is one clinical trial I am not interested in.
B

Mary, I didn't mean to cause you to get your back up. Actually, I was being somewhat facetious. But as long as you mentioned it, maybe woman should register their knives. The thought of getting "wacked off, Bobbit style" sends an uncomfortable tingle down my spine.

You have done something to deserve it , you should have nothing to worry about.


Thank you
2007=27

better already. I just hope that "deserve" doesn't get a distorted meaning.

I'd think it would make you uncomfortable somewhere else.  LOL

The response I gave was because, quite frankly, I'm tired of the sexist stereotype.  Women can't protect themselves because ONE woman might hurt a man.  It isn't the first time that argument has been used to deprive women of a means to protect themselves. In a country where 20% of men admit to being a rapist (that, by the way, is an astromical number...1 in 5 men is a rapist), why the worry about one vindictive woman????  Following that logic, women shouldn't be allowed to carry firearms because they might shoot someone during a PMS attack, they shouldn't be allowed guard dogs because in a fit of vindictiveness she might sic the dog on the unfortunate boyfriend, and they shouldn't be allowed to take personal defense courses, lest this vindictive woman beat up her poor boyfriend.  The argument stereotypes women as viscious creatures instead of human beings who are being injured.  Do we stop believing all women that make an accusation of rape because ONE woman lied about it? Do we consider taking away a means that a woman might have to defend herself solely because ONE woman MIGHT misuse the tool?

Okay.  Off my soap box now.

Look at all the crazy shootings in the US.  All done by men, but does anyone suggest men shouldn't carry guns?  Of course not, because ALL women are the same, while men should be dealt with on an individual basis.