Anti-Rape Condoms
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20008347-10391704.html
I'm not quite sure how I feel about these. On the one hand, I think the idea of more protection than a rape whistle is awesome. On the other hand, I wonder about the efficacy of such a device.
The article says that it can only be removed by a doctor, and they hope that this will help them catch rapists. While it might do, I strongly suspect that this would just give rise to plenty of "black market" clinics that will remove them without informing the authorities. Which would mean that the Rape-aXe would only act as a deterrent, not a means of reporting rapists.
But would it really do that? While I suspect that it might, occasionally, catch a rapist by surprise, I worry that widespread adoption of the Rape-aXe would just make rape an even more violent crime as the rapists would beat their victims beforehand to force them to remove the Rape-aXe.
Do the possible benefits outweigh the possible risks? I really don't know. What I do know is that thinking about this is definitely a step in the right direction. Yes, the ultimate goal would be to raise boys so that they don't behave this way and raise girls to be able to defend themselves, but those long term goals are no reason not to take more temporary preventative measures.
On a final note, I totally disagree with Victoria Kajja's statement that "the act of wearing the condom in anticipation of being assaulted all represent enslavement that no woman should be subjected to." If you live in a reality where the danger of rape is present the way it is in many of these communities, then you are already enslaved by fear. Wearing an anti-rape device would be an intelligent precaution. In an area extremely prone to shootings, would we call a person wearing a bullet-proof vest a slave of the vest? We might say that the neighborhood is an oppressive environment and that the person should move away, but the bullet-proof vest itself would never be called "a form of enslavement." Statements like these anger me. I put them on par with those who say that we should not be teaching young girls self defense because it teaches them to be afraid of attack. That's just denial, and it doesn't help anything.
I'm not quite sure how I feel about these. On the one hand, I think the idea of more protection than a rape whistle is awesome. On the other hand, I wonder about the efficacy of such a device.
The article says that it can only be removed by a doctor, and they hope that this will help them catch rapists. While it might do, I strongly suspect that this would just give rise to plenty of "black market" clinics that will remove them without informing the authorities. Which would mean that the Rape-aXe would only act as a deterrent, not a means of reporting rapists.
But would it really do that? While I suspect that it might, occasionally, catch a rapist by surprise, I worry that widespread adoption of the Rape-aXe would just make rape an even more violent crime as the rapists would beat their victims beforehand to force them to remove the Rape-aXe.
Do the possible benefits outweigh the possible risks? I really don't know. What I do know is that thinking about this is definitely a step in the right direction. Yes, the ultimate goal would be to raise boys so that they don't behave this way and raise girls to be able to defend themselves, but those long term goals are no reason not to take more temporary preventative measures.
On a final note, I totally disagree with Victoria Kajja's statement that "the act of wearing the condom in anticipation of being assaulted all represent enslavement that no woman should be subjected to." If you live in a reality where the danger of rape is present the way it is in many of these communities, then you are already enslaved by fear. Wearing an anti-rape device would be an intelligent precaution. In an area extremely prone to shootings, would we call a person wearing a bullet-proof vest a slave of the vest? We might say that the neighborhood is an oppressive environment and that the person should move away, but the bullet-proof vest itself would never be called "a form of enslavement." Statements like these anger me. I put them on par with those who say that we should not be teaching young girls self defense because it teaches them to be afraid of attack. That's just denial, and it doesn't help anything.