• S E X
    L O V E +
    R E L A T I O N S H I P S


    ❤️ Welcome Guest! ❤️


    Posting Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • SLR Moderators: Senior Staff

anti-rape devices

No one says that having locks for our doors is putting the onus of responsibility to not be burglarized on the homeowner. Providing potential victims a tool with which to defend themselves does not necessarily include the implication that they are to blame for being victimized. It simply empowers them with an avenue of defense.

With that being said, I agree that if a society (i.e. South Africa, or any other country with statistics similar to those posted earlier in the thread) has such a serious problem with rape, there are a lot more systemic actions that need to be taken to protect people from it. These devices are a lot more extreme than having locks on your door to protect you from thieves, but in a society with a problem that extreme, I think that an extreme measure might be what some potential victims would choose.

@kaywholed: I agree that the antibiotics are the more important aspect of the treatment. Unfortunately, we don't have a "cure" for the occurrence of rape, especially in underdeveloped countries. If you were the person from your analogy and you ONLY had access to the painkillers, I don't think treating the symptoms of the problem would seem so stupid. I get that your point was that the ideal solution would be to stop rape altogether, but that's like saying we should stop worrying about medical treatment and just worry about not getting sick or injured. A problem should be attacked from all reasonable angles, not just the one that leads to an idealized solution.

Very well said, 10 out of 10 great post
 
Having locks on your material property is not analogous to inserting an apparatus into your cervix. This metaphor itself has ghastly implications (likely unintended). Keeping in respect the magnitudinous difference in degrees of violation, if someone left their door open and were robbed it makes it easier for people to say they had it coming rather than examine the forces behind the robbery. Responsibility is shifted to victims frequently in any country, particularly in the case of rape.

Here is a greater part of the problem: The National Center for Policy Analysis states "anywhere in America if a man rapes a woman he should only expect to serve 128 days." ["National Center for Policy Analysis." Study #229, October 1998. 28, Nov. 2005 (http://www.ncpa.org/ studies/s229/s229.html)] In America. Not in South Africa, where these devices are marketed. South Africa is regarded as the rape capital of the world, but the government shifts responsibility to insurance and medical companies, such as Lifesense, who make these devices, along w/ post-rape kits. As kayholed mentioned, this is closer to treating symptoms, rather than a social disease.

In regard to the cervical device, and speaking practically rather than idealistically, can anyone honestly call this a satisfactory preventative measure???

"Nothing has ever been done to help a woman so that she does not get raped and I thought it was about time." - Sonette Ehlers, inventor of Rapex anti-rape devices. Her point, perhaps unwittingly, addresses the lack of standardization and unification of punishment or even reform in the question of rapists. It is easy to say the country is unwieldy and anarchic and place the responsibility on the individual, rather than challenging a penal system to adopt stricter and consistent punitive measures. Shift the focus to victim's preparedness, the object to their bodies rather than social pandemic.

It is reported 40% of South African women will be raped in their lifetime, and only 1 in 9 rapes will be reported ("South Africa’s corrective rape". time.com. 2011-03-08 ). More revealing is only 14% of aggressors are convicted (Kapp, Clare (2006). "Rape on trial in South Africa". The Lancet 367). The reason for abysmally low conviction rates is conveyed in the "CEDAW: First South African Report" on sexual violence toward women: "the report states that the attitudes and prejudices of law enforcement agencies and other government personnel and the inaccessibility of services, particularly in rural areas, are also part of the problem."

The statistics should speak for themselves. However, to be clear, there is an apparent obviation of responsibility, legislative and juridical.

Lastly, returning to the first statistic, this isn't exclusively South Africa's problem. Across the spectrum, the US, Canada, and European countries thus far fail to codify salient procedure and punishment/redress regarding rape.
 
I agree with all of your premises, but simply disagree with your conclusion. Like I said before, I agree that there is a larger and more systemic problem to be addressed, but I don't agree that providing potential victims with a tool to try to protect themselves with NOW is a bad thing. The sort of changes in question here, even if they are strongly advocated for and put into motion immediately, aren't going to produce results overnight, or even with a year, or 5. A tool of this nature (or perhaps a less violent/violating form of it) could help a potential victim NOW.
 
No one here has said that anti-rape devices were a satisfactory preventative measure, I think that the consensus here amongst this school of thought is.... well think about it!!! To these people, living in inherent danger and fear of rape, they have potentially ONE tool designed to deter rape, regardless of it's in/efficiency.

Regarding the piss poor conviction rates in South Africa, we have the same problems in 1st world countries like the United States and Canada.

As someone who has been a repeated victim of non-consensual sexual relations, I can tell you that the law offers literally no incentive against the rapist, for reasons I've already described, so I'll reiterate, when you're raped, even in the "Good Ol' US&A", you're going to take justice into your own fucking hands. So in a way, I don't see much of a difference between a preventative measure of questionable efficacy, or a a post-rape measure the "authorities" use to "deal" with what happened of even more questionable efficacy.

These devices may be regarded as "extreme" to some, but I'll bet the same people who call them extreme would be the same people saying it's "extreme" to seek your own Justice for what happened to you, with whatever "extreme" tools the raped wants to use against their rapist, be it a Shotgun or whatever.

When you're raped, the trauma lasts a lifetime. Why should the rapist not suffer similar trauma for life?

Please forgive me if this post wasn't totally clear, I literally just woke up.
 
Speaking generally, tools to prevent rape are not a bad thing. It's not really for me to decide if it's bad; ultimately that is each woman's choice. Yet, it is far from black and white. My objective was to present a case highlighting the implications of these devices concerning responsibility. I feel I've articulated and provided these points sufficiently.

I fail to understand how the immediacy and abruptness of these devices addresses my points about them. I've not broached upon their functionality or performance as mechanisms, but their ramifications socially and in the penal system. Although, to clarify, these devices are a painful and disconcerting band-aid in lieu of substantial and lasting civil change. In any other situation where a group of people are being terrorized, we wouldn't ask or expect them to take up defensive measures, even temporarily, but would enact reform to address the persecution.

I respect your acknowledgement of the underlying problem, but I refute your point that the appearances of these devices should be welcomed as merely another preventative measure. Their arrival not only implies a false progress and deterrence, but a misdirection in accountability. Never mind the intimation you should essentially vagina dentata yourself because your government won't protect rape victims. These aren't simply tools; they mean more.
 
No one here has said that anti-rape devices were a satisfactory preventative measure, I think that the consensus here amongst this school of thought is.... well think about it!!! To these people, living in inherent danger and fear of rape, they have potentially ONE tool designed to deter rape, regardless of it's in/efficiency.

Regarding the piss poor conviction rates in South Africa, we have the same problems in 1st world countries like the United States and Canada.

As someone who has been a repeated victim of non-consensual sexual relations, I can tell you that the law offers literally no incentive against the rapist, for reasons I've already described, so I'll reiterate, when you're raped, even in the "Good Ol' US&A", you're going to take justice into your own fucking hands. So in a way, I don't see much of a difference between a preventative measure of questionable efficacy, or a a post-rape measure the "authorities" use to "deal" with what happened of even more questionable efficacy.

These devices may be regarded as "extreme" to some, but I'll bet the same people who call them extreme would be the same people saying it's "extreme" to seek your own Justice for what happened to you, with whatever "extreme" tools the raped wants to use against their rapist, be it a Shotgun or whatever.

When you're raped, the trauma lasts a lifetime. Why should the rapist not suffer similar trauma for life?

Please forgive me if this post wasn't totally clear, I literally just woke up.

tl;dr Until the government and society can adequately meet the needs of the victims of pre-and more importantly, post-sexual assault, people are going to do their best to take the issue into their own hands. Complaining about how ineffective the current authority is in dealing with the underlying problems doesn't accomplish much.
 
Tricomb, the rhetorical question wasn't there to defeat a previous poster, but to engender consideration. My difference(s) w/ those on this thread are rooted in how we view the systematic response, or moreover the varying degrees of embedded neglect of rape victims, and finally whether, or how, these tools apply there (sorry if that's unclear).

You seem to be saying these tools are the only, and hence, best choice and redress people have. I disagree. New tools and practical invention do not always suggest progress, and they occasionally betray it. I will concede, for an individual, for one person, options are limited. I can't speak to personal consideration on the matter, beyond my own, and I'm not suggesting the option be stricken, in case that's unclear.

I acknowledged twice the rampant incidence and lack of unified redress for victims of rape in the US, as well as other "modernized countries." On the topic of vigilante justice, preventative measures of questionable efficacy, and the gradient between the two, I fail to see what you mean. Overall, I gleaned you feel the system is useless in meting out punishment, and therefor, rape victims can and should mete it out themselves. Forgive me if I misunderstand, but your language imparts what seems like an obligation to personally get even w/ your attacker. I'm pretty sure I'm misunderstanding you, because while I can't say it isn't justified, I can say encouraging victims to engage violent situations w/ someone who already attacked them is a potentially dangerous and devastating pursuit. Again, if you were speaking to your personal closure, and not suggesting people take up arms (even here, where it is almost beyond reproach), then I apologize.

We both agree the legal redress of rape across the world is unsatisfactory. Now I have to ask, how can it be said vigilante justice will yield sufficient justice as opposed to as yet to be determined reform? Perhaps the reform will increase the severity (as it should) that in the US it will truly deter people from rape. If it is established many do not come forward to the authorities, their family, and/or friends due to shame, is it likely they will confront their attacker? I ask that putting aside any moral or civil scruples on the subject of vigilante justice. I don't mean to judge your response to your situation, but as a prescription it is frightening.

I'm sorry for your suffering, and I'm sorry if any of this has come off insensitive or indifferent.
 
tl;dr Until the government and society can adequately meet the needs of the victims of pre-and more importantly, post-sexual assault, people are going to do their best to take the issue into their own hands. Complaining about how ineffective the current authority is in dealing with the underlying problems doesn't accomplish much.

Agreed, mostly. Except - complaining, or addressing and discussing it does accomplish something. Dialogue is important. People should not be scorned or reproached for voicing issues, unless it is held they are doing so disingenuously or for ulterior motives.
 
i dont think rape is black and white though, what about a married couple that are arguing then it results in 'angry' sex?
girls can be wasted and openly offer it to anyone... at the time she consents but in the morning she changes her mind... whos in the wrong if both people are wasted? is it fair to say the guy is a rapist when at the time everything was fine??
 


You seem to be saying these tools are the only, and hence, best choice and redress people have. I disagree. New tools and practical invention do not always suggest progress, and they occasionally betray it. I will concede, for an individual, for one person, options are limited. I can't speak to personal consideration on the matter, beyond my own, and I'm not suggesting the option be stricken, in case that's unclear.

No I'm not saying that, at all. I'm saying that I can see the logic and emotions behind both schools of thought, in terms of both what can be done today, and what should be done tomorrow to prevent what's happening.

Overall, I gleaned you feel the system is useless in meting out punishment, and therefor, rape victims can and should mete it out themselves. Forgive me if I misunderstand, but your language imparts what seems like an obligation to personally get even w/ your attacker. I'm pretty sure I'm misunderstanding you, because while I can't say it isn't justified, I can say encouraging victims to engage violent situations w/ someone who already attacked them is a potentially dangerous and devastating pursuit. Again, if you were speaking to your personal closure, and not suggesting people take up arms (even here, where it is almost beyond reproach), then I apologize.
I was speaking to personal closure, not suggesting anyone else do the same, but that if they did I could empathize with them. My own personal beliefs were not being encouraged, I didn't know I came off this way so I'm glad we're clarifying this.


We both agree the legal redress of rape across the world is unsatisfactory. Now I have to ask, how can it be said vigilante justice will yield sufficient justice as opposed to as yet to be determined reform? Perhaps the reform will increase the severity (as it should) that in the US it will truly deter people from rape. If it is established many do not come forward to the authorities, their family, and/or friends due to shame, is it likely they will confront their attacker? I ask that putting aside any moral or civil scruples on the subject of vigilante justice. I don't mean to judge your response to your situation, but as a prescription it is frightening.

I'm sorry for your suffering, and I'm sorry if any of this has come off insensitive or indifferent.

Well, not due to shame, but due to a multitude of other reasons, shame not being included, I am far from ashamed, have "confronted my attacker" without saying anything to any friends, family, or "authority". So I can't comment on how likely they are to do this, as I am biased.

Agreed, mostly. Except - complaining, or addressing and discussing it does accomplish something. Dialogue is important. People should not be scorned or reproached for voicing issues, unless it is held they are doing so disingenuously or for ulterior motives.

True, mostly what I was getting at is that people who are raped are going to deal with it in their own way, whether the authorities are involved or not doesn't really have to do with a person getting over the experience.
 
To these people, living in inherent danger and fear of rape, they have potentially ONE tool designed to deter rape, regardless of it's in/efficiency.

This is why I felt compelled to approach this part of your outlook as I did.

As someone who has been a repeated victim of non-consensual sexual relations, I can tell you that the law offers literally no incentive against the rapist, for reasons I've already described, so I'll reiterate, when you're raped, even in the "Good Ol' US&A", you're going to take justice into your own fucking hands.

The use of "your" instead of "I'm" confused me as to who will take justice into their own hands.

When I asked if it is likely victimized persons will confront their attackers I didn't mean to speak to your case. I know you said you are biased due to your experience, so I won't pursue this, but I hope you understand what I was getting at.

As to the final point, the fact the authorities have no bearing on the outcomes is something needing rectification. Dialogue is a good place to start, and in a public forum may spread awareness.
 
In the case of violently forced rapes I can see this device being detrimental. If somebody has a weapon, and has or is threatening to hurt you in order to rape you, I think having their dick cut up can turn a rape into a murder.
I also don't know why you'd want your rapists dick stuck in your vagina for a longer time.
There isn't really a viable solution to rape in my eyes. Even if you miraculously locked up every rapist right now, the idea will grow in someone elses mind and will continue to do so as long as there are humans. You can't control how somebody acts, so whether they'll act on this idea/desire/urge/impulse/whatever is the main thing, as there will always be a way.
As far as skewed statistics, when the government starts including sexual acts of wards of the state or whatever orphans and prisoners are called, as well as people under the legal age of consent, as rape...
Same with abuse, my sister works for the government in a homeless/social services department and I've been in arguments with her as the statistics of domestic abuse and other issues I take seriously are fucking desecrated by such bullshit when you include things every boy with a brother would have experienced as domestic violence.
I don't care much for statistics, or rape.
 
This does not seem a whole lot different to me then would wearing IIIa body armor, and a PASGT helmet to walk around and go to the store. Except its even less useful, at least that stuff has a reasonable chance of mitigating the consequences of being shot/stabbed, these devices don't materially reduce the trauma of being raped by any mechanism I can identify, and, like the body armor, they only come into play AFTER the event has happened, they provide no real defense from the event happening to begin with. i.e. they are useless...
 
@OP:

These devices were invented for some African countries where rape levels are rampant. I say good. Unlike homicide, assault, and other violent crimes, there is never an excuse for rape. It serves no purpose other than to harm and violate another. If you don't want to get sharp barbs stuck on your dick, then the answer is simple: STOP RAPING PEOPLE.

Only problem is, this device just prevents vaginal rape. It does not prevent anal rape, nor does it address male-on-male rape which also happens a lot, especially in the prison system. Still, it's a good step, until the underlying social misogyny can be dealt with.
 
If you're going to justify murder, you can justify rape. Rape is a fleeting experience, you get to continue living after you're raped.
Death is final. That's it.
If there's a circumstance in which it's okay to kill, there's a circumstance in which it's okay to rape.
This is a device that is inserted into an orifice. Whether you put it in your vagina or your anus is irrelevant, the idea of the device can be applied to both. I can't see many men walking around with something up their arse though.
Prison rape has nothing to do with such devices.
 
Although usually you do get to keep living after being raped, this is really up to your attacker, your statement is pretty broad, and seems to be based around the, IMO, delusional idea that death is the worst possible thing that could happen to a person, just because it's "final".

Some of the worst possible things that do happen to a person are not final nor do they end in death even if you wish you had died instead, they are ongoing and the trauma lasts a lifetime. This is why some rape victims commit suicide, or "live" with PTSD.

I don't understand in the slightest what you mean about justifying rape, give me one circumstance in which it's okay to rape.
 
I don't understand in the slightest what you mean about justifying rape, give me one circumstance in which it's okay to rape.

Insanity: If the person is truly unaware of their acts and what they are doing, and with no control, it is not right to call them "guilty" or a "rapist" if they are GENUINELY sick, then we need to provide treatment for them, not punishment. Sometimes it is essential to have compassion for even the person who does most heinous acts.

Duress: If one is forced to rape another by imminent and clear threat of death, grievous bodily harm, or the same threats made against others if this person does rape, we again must understand the situation at hand, and the "rapist" is as much as victim as the raped. The true guilty party is the one who forced the person to rape.

Mistake of consent: If the person has good reason that a reasonable person would also agree on, that the person consented, that they said "yes" even if it happened that they did not, you can not call this person a rapist. This person lacks Mens Rea to the offense, because they genuinely believed that it was consensual...lets maybe try a thought experiment example: So they agree before hand to some S/M play. The bottom agrees to be gagged, bound and to be penetrated vaginally. During the seen, it is going well, until the top penetrates her anally, and she can not make a distinguishable sound to voice her withdrawal of consent. It seems to be reasonable that the top had reasonable belief of consent to sexually activity, and misunderstood that she meant vaginally only due to poor communications. It again seems that it would be wrong to call him rapist, as he had reasonable cause to believe it was consented to.
 
Top