On the other hand, is it possible that it will be used against innocent men? Would it be possible that women could actually lure men in and attack them with it?
So... strange.
South Africa anti-rape condom aims to stop attacks
KLEINMOND, South Africa (Reuters) - A South African inventor unveiled a new anti-rape female condom on Wednesday that hooks onto an attacker's penis and aims to cut one of the highest rates of sexual assault in the world.
"Nothing has ever been done to help a woman so that she does not get raped and I thought it was high time," Sonette Ehlers, 57, said of the "rapex", a device worn like a tampon that has sparked controversy in a country used to daily reports of violent crime.
But the "rapex" has raised fears amongst anti-rape activists that it could escalate violence against women.
"If a victim is wearing such a device it may enrage the attacker further and possibly result in more harm being caused," said Sam Waterhouse, advocacy co-ordinator for Rape Crisis.
Other critics say the condom is mediaeval and barbaric
3 comments:
I'd think that people would be more concerned about the inevitable violence that would be perpetuated against women who actually try to use this thing. I mean, if the guy is violent enough to rape you, he's probably not going to stop just because his wang is put through the proverbial meat grinder.
I'm just saying that new violence isn't necessarily the best way to combat existing violence.
Africa has a number of structural problems that have led to an environment ripe for HIV and rape. I'd be surprised if these devices will have the appropriate effect because they do not address the central problems that have led Africa to this state.
Distributing guns throughout the ghetto to give ghetto residence protection isn't going to stop the problem of ghetto violence. Additionally, simply criticizing people in the ghetto for becoming violent won't do much either. Ghettos are symptoms of a larger problem, and what is going on in Africa is the same way.
I'm not blaming them for anything, nor am I bringing up male fear.
I'm saying that women who wear these things will probably get even more physical harm against them.
Additionally, you say that a man who is wrongly snatched by one of these things could prosecute. What makes you think that in a place where rape is so common that the law provides a convenient way for men to prosecute? And how could the man prove that he was wrongly snatched? Couldn't the woman cry rape?
I don't think this device is a "solution" to anything, especially fear. I don't think news of the existence of these things will spread through the would-be rapists, so I don't think it will have an effect on reducing the number of rapes.
And, most importantly, there is a reason why in civilized societies there is a recognition that victims or those very close to victims cannot determine the punishment for crimes against them. Sure, this device might just be self defense, but you're statements take it to a whole new level. You suggest permanent damage. You are appalled that the devices don't do more. You say that the devices aren't simply a deterrent -- they are a punishment. Do you really think that rape is a special case where civil liberties do not apply?
Post a Comment