An anti-rape invention is making the rounds on FB again. Marcus Williams appreciates the appeal, but doesn’t think the product would succeed at stopping rape.
[Author note: It took me several attempts over three days to write this, scrapping more than one near-complete draft along the way. Ultimately, I’m indebted to a rape victim who wished not to be named for hopefully transforming my tone from defensive man, to man who understands and even agrees with the appeal of the subject matter, despite my objection to it on practical grounds. My heart and thanks go out to her, even if she doesn’t read it or is ultimately disappointed by my take. –M.W.]
There’s an image I’ve been seeing making the rounds on Facebook lately, of a painful-looking invention being celebrated as an ingenious anti-rape device.
I can’t vouch for the authenticity of the blurb that usually accompanies the picture, but here’s the most recent version I’ve seen accompanying the pic on Facebook:
OUCH!!
Rape has become endemic in South Africa, so a medical technician named Sonette Ehlers developed a product that immediately gathered national attention there. Ehlers had never forgotten a rape victim telling her forlornly, “If only I had teeth down there.”
Some time afterward, a man came into the hospital where Ehlers works in excruciating pain because his penis was stuck in his pants zipper.
Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad freeEhlers merged those images and came up with a product she called Rapex. It resembles a tube, with barbs inside. The woman inserts it like a tampon, with an applicator, and any man who tries to rape the woman impales himself on the barbs and must go to an emergency room to have the Rapex removed.
When critics complained that it was a medieval punishment, Ehlers replied tersely, “A medieval device for a medieval deed.”
– Half the Sky, Nicholas Kristof
This is the kind of picture and narrative that always sends me running to Snopes.com for an analysis of how much is bullshit and how much might be true. This story gets a “Partly True” verdict from Snopes, which explains that the named inventor did indeed unveil the device for the first time in 2005, but that they could find no evidence that it ever went into production or is likely to do so. If anyone can find a confirmed case of one of these things actually being used and doing what it’s designed to do, please share the link in comments, but my Google search didn’t turn up any evidence that it ever made it past the prototype stage.
Aside from the reflexive “OUCH!!” reaction I have in common with many men when I see the picture, I have two separate aspects I react to. There’s the function it symbolizes, which I support and can empathize to some degree with the women who say enthusiastic things about it, and then there’s what I think of it’s real-world prospects, which I think are so bad it never will or should make it to market.
Symbolically, this thing represents a way to hurt a rapist the way he most deserves to be hurt, as a direct consequence of raping, so he’d be bringing it on himself. While this invention fits my idea of “cruel and unusual” and would bother me as an after-the-act punishment, I can’t say I’m troubled by the idea of a rapist being injured in this way, just like I’m totally cool with the idea of a rapist getting kicked in the balls out of self-defense. My hypothetical tolerance, though, is mild compared to how I think many if not most rape victims regard this thing. In a discussion about this device, one survivor of an especially vicious and violent rape confided to me that her raw reaction to this invention, and men who argue against it, was this:
So for all of human history men have carried a deadly weapon in their pants, and the minute we get something that barely evens the odds, that damages but cannot kill, guys are freaked out. How guys feel when they see that device, the fear that a sexual encounter could end in bodily harm, is how we feel all the time.”
Having been told of just some of the details of what happened to her, I can’t blame her for feeling that way, and on that symbolic level, where this invention is almost like anti-rape art, I share that feeling, albeit less intensely than someone who has actually been raped. Looking at the real-world prospects, though, I think this thing has far too many drawbacks and potential for failure to be a good idea.
One of the first problems that occurs to many men is that while few have any sympathy for a rapist getting “bit” by a RapeX, it could also be used by vindictive women to punish partners for whatever wrongdoing they decide merits some phallic mangling as retribution. I have seen it argued that it would be highly unlikely for that to occur because any remotely attentive lover would detect the device during foreplay and be able to remove it. Even ignoring how a man might react upon discovering the device that way, I think the argument fails in two ways: 1) Foreplay doesn’t always include the kind of contact or visualization of the vagina that would lead to detecting the device before penetration with the penis; and 2) Even if it would take an inept or selfish lover to miss it, it does not follow that he deserves the same fate, during consensual sex, as a rapist.
While the “innocent penis” argument is compelling to me and I would imagine most men, it’s not the only argument against this thing. I think the downsides are pretty obvious just by thinking about how it’s supposed to work in a best case scenario, and then how likely those best case scenarios are to achieve.
Imagine a woman wears this thing and it works exactly as designed – it incapacitates her rapist, she gets away, and he gets apprehended and imprisoned when he has to seek medical attention to have the RapeX removed. Maybe he’s even so physically damaged that he’s rendered physically incapable of ever raping again, and/or so tramautized that he’s too afraid to ever rape again. In such a scenario, the woman still got raped. It was cut short, which is good compared to a prolonged rape, but penetration still occurred if the rapist got snagged, so her rape was not prevented. In the best case scenario that rapist is prevented from going on to rape again, but the incident does not prevent other rapists.
For other rapists (i.e. any would-be rapist who has not encountered a RapeX) to be deterred by the RapeX, they would have to be aware that it exists, and concerned enough about how likely they are to encounter it to be worried. Paradoxically, if the awareness of RapeX is high enough to scare potential rapists, it’s also easy to simply check for and remove the device if they’re about to rape. Remember that attentive lover being safe from it? So would an attentive rapist.
In the ideal scenario, RapeX lets a victim get away. I can only speculate, but I would imagine that if a rapist was not completely incapacitated as hoped, or there were other attackers or accomplices present, or it was one of those careful ones that found and removed the device, it would not present an opportunity to escape, and it would increase the risk of bodily injury or death to the victim. This could be said of any attempt to resist that failed (screaming for help, struggling, etc.), but compared to those, I would expect a direct attack (or threat to attack) on a rapist’s penis would be even more likely to be met with violent retribution. The RapeX would not only increase chances of injuring the rapist, but also increase the risk of severe physical injury to the victim, beyond those normally incurred during a rape. I can even imagine a rapist who finds one cutting it, inverting it, and using it to inflict greater damage on the victim.
What are the health and hygiene implications of how to use this device? I don’t have any specific risks to cite, but one scary-ass looking prototype doesn’t establish that it would be safe, easy, and affordable to use.
Even if the ambient risk of rape is high, victims don’t know when and where it’s going to happen. Obviously, they can’t reach into their purse once a rape has begun to insert this thing, so using it would be like wearing a seatbelt—you wear it pretty much all the time just in case, so it’s there when you need it. That raises lots of questions:
- Is that something a lot of women are going to be willing to do—walk around with what is essentially an internal chastity belt most of the time?
- Is it comfortable enough to tolerate having in so much?
- Would there be risks of infection and toxic shock to contend with?
- If it has to be switched out with new ones periodically, would it be affordable?
- What are the implications for young girls? If women become “too dangerous” to rape, won’t young girls need to routinely use these to avoid becoming the most frequent targets?
- How extensive is the damage? Presumably, any soft tissue is at risk, not just rapist’s penises, so it seems likely that inexperienced or clumsy users (or their partners) might accidentally impale their fingers while trying to adjust or remove it. If, as the description suggest, the only way to get it off is surgery, that’s a pretty severe consequence for clumsy handling.
I might be wildly underestimating women’s willingness to use this if it were available, but I have a hard time imagining it catching on as just a routine thing women do as a rape countermeasure. It seems like a lot of hassle, expense, and potential risk to their own health—even without encountering a rapist—for a best case result that wouldn’t even prevent them from getting raped. I strongly doubt that even the most fanatical proponent of this device would support making its use compulsory, so I think the end result even if it was brought to market would be that very few women would adopt it into their regular routine.
However, many of those same risks and inconveniences that would deter regular use are not a factor for that first problem mentioned a while back, of women being able to use it intentionally to punish a non-rapist man—for whatever reason. For that kind of use, it would be like putting in a diaphragm before sex that was expected to occur, and it would be easier to lure an unsuspecting partner into penetrating the barbed sheath than a rapist. Even if RapeX was known as a popular anti-rape device, the unsuspecting partner wouldn’t feel any need for caution, and to ensure maximum penetration and damage on the first thrust, a woman could be sure to be all lubed up, unlike a rape scenario.
In terms of the logistics of it, I think it would work so much more effectively against a consensual partner than a rapist, and without all the day-to-day hassle of “just in case” use, that as much as I’d love to see rapists RapeX’ed out of circulation, I think the real-world prospects would harm women and non-rapist men a lot more than they would harm those rapists.
What do you think? Do you think I underestimate the prospects of much good this product could do if it ever made it to market? Do you think it poses a risk to non-rapist men? Would your reaction be similar to some kind of anti-rape-by-envelopment device, like a weaponized cock ring, or is there something special about the anti-penis kind of device?
Photo: Unverifiable image courtesy of Facebook
I was the first one to say something about the “men have carried a deadly weapon in their pants” and I’ll just re-iterate that even though I very well understand where it comes from when it’s a victim saying it I am not obligated to like it.
It is also a notion not only held by victims – it’s also commonly used in PSA about safe sex:
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/06/18/safer-sex-psas-conflate-the-penis-with-a-firearm/
http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=71770
Sociological Pages likens those with the WWII posters which personified sexually transmitted diseases as women.
And then we have insanity like this: http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=71770
A number of commenters have reacted strongly to the part I quoted from a rape victim, but I’m afraid I may have understated the context as I understood it, so let me try again, adding emphasis to the original quote’s setup: In a discussion about this device, one survivor of an especially vicious and violent rape confided to me that her raw reaction to this invention, and men who argue against it, was this: So for all of human history men have carried a deadly weapon in their pants, and the minute we get something that barely evens the odds,… Read more »
Everyone here probably knows that Marcus and I are good friends. But you might not know that we disagree as much as we agree on almost anything relating to social issues. In this case, Marcus has made me cry with relief at his understanding and empathy for the experiences of survivors. Here are two crucial points I hope nobody overlooks: I don’t have to agree that penises are weapons to sympathize with how they could be regarded as such, just like I don’t have to agree that all hammers are weapons to understand why someone who has been attacked with… Read more »
Marcus, I appreciate what you are saying about a “raw” reaction. Yet I see “raw” reactions get condemned all of the time. Joanna herself stated that she has “raw” reactions to people of certain European nationalities, and she acknowledges those reactions are incorrect and she needs to work on them (source: https://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/can-hipsters-be-racists-too/ ). This seems little different: she had a REALLY TERRIBLE experience, no one has claimed otherwise (despite Joanna’s attempts to misconstrue my statements). It is completely understandable that she would have a certain raw reaction as a result of that experience. But guess what: the raw reaction is… Read more »
Mike L, I tried to address this somewhat above (see my comment @ August 7, 2012 at 1:13 pm), but I think you’re assuming the quoted victim never processed that feeling any further than the quoted bit. That would be like someone telling me (in a blog) they saw you flinch around an Asian guy, and me automatically “calling you out” for your racism even though subsequent to the flinch, your rational mind kicked in and stopped you from drawing racist conclusions, thanks to having enough self-awareness to know it’s something you need to work on. It would be a… Read more »
I don’t think there is nothing inherently wrong with feeling a raw reaction. It’s the conclusions drawn from those raw reactions that may become problematic. In my time here at GMP I’ve seen plenty of times where people have expressed raw reactions and conclusions drawn from them, just to have people call them on the conclusions. To use myself as an example I’ve been dog plied and attacked by feminists on various forums in the last few years. As a result I developed a raw reaction at the thought of dealing with them. Since then there has been no shortage… Read more »
I’m with Sarah. But my fear would be that, if used in the US, the successful lawsuits rapists would bring, based on the legal concept of not settng traps for criminals. It would almost certainly be illegal here.
Though I empathise that the woman fears rape (don’t we all), her explanation that men have a ‘weapon in their pants’ and the barbed device puts women on ‘equal footing’ with men in this aspect is just not so, a penis is not exactly weaponistic, it’s very fragile, committing rape has a very high chance of the perpetrator’s genitals being cut, torn, bruised and diseased, more so if they’re a man, because male genitalia has a way of dangling or sticking out rather precariously.
This would be a reasonable device if we can guarantee that they will be used as intended, but I can’t help but think the potential to abuse this device is just too high.
I’m going to throw somethine else out here, and see what people think:
I think that most men have no comprehension of the idea that their genitalia can be a weapon (the phallicness of guns notwithstanding) and are rather repulsed by the idea. Again, am I off base here?
Rapists probably think of their penises as weapons, but most men, probably not.
I can’t remember where I read it, but there was some study that shows that rapists think that all men are rapists….
(the phallicness of guns notwithstanding) I’ve been finding the implications of the shape of weapons to be a bit stretching these days. Like folks are supposed to believe that physics and efficiency of killing people took a backseat to a phallic shape when these weapons were first developed. Guns don’t have barrels in order to guide the bullet for accuracy, no they have barrels because gun barrels are shaped like penises. I think that most men have no comprehension of the idea that their genitalia can be a weapon (the phallicness of guns notwithstanding) and are rather repulsed by the… Read more »
I just want to point out that to claim this could be used as a weapon against an innocent man in the case of a vengeful wife is a rather weak argument. Any person who is willing to harm another human being in such a manner already has problems, and a woman who truly wants to cause harm is going to cause harm whether or not this thing exists. If not this, then a knife or scissors or something else.
It’s not a weak argument, it’s just another potential tool in the arsenal of weapons people can use against each other.
The difference is that this will deflect blame and cast the man as rapist instead of the woman as an assailant (if a different mode of attack was used).
Wow. This is one cheerful page. Yikes.
‘ So for all of human history men have carried a deadly weapon in their pants, and the minute we get something that barely evens the odds, that damages but cannot kill, guys are freaked out. ‘
Correction, a penis is not a weapon. Its just a penis. Nothing more nothing less….
yea and a gun is just a gun not a weapon
I read an article in which a woman tore off a mans testicles with her bare hands (she was angry he turned her down for sex). Does that mean women have also walked around with weapons for all of human history, or (like the quote) would I be using hyperbole to make a false point?
So for all of human history men have carried a deadly weapon in their pants, and the minute we get something that barely evens the odds, that damages but cannot kill, guys are freaked out. How guys feel when they see that device, the fear that a sexual encounter could end in bodily harm, is how we feel all the time.” While I don’t want to try to tell this woman how to feel about penises I have to say that as a person with a penis I’ve grown rather tired of the actions of a small portion of penis… Read more »
‘ An anti-female-against-male rape device (for the penis at least) would be harder to implement due to fact that we don’t just walk around with erections all the time. And of course I can already imagine the “but it doesn’t happen as often as male against female rape!” (or some similar ‘what about teh wimminz’ chirping) crowd chiming in about how that would be wasted resources, male privilege, or something else. ‘ Oh my god, im so tired hearing this especially from people who deal with this stuff. IMO who employ this meme, is better suited to make icecrams rather… Read more »
Most men are raped by other men. so Logically it’d be more productive for men to creat a device to use to protect themselves against other men.
Not true. Per the latest CDC report on intimate partner violence, when the definition of rape is expanded to include men “being forced to penetrate” somebody else, men are raped almost as much as women, and 80% of the time in which they are forced to penetrate somebody a woman is the assailant.
Most men are raped by women, if you include women forcing men to penetrate them as rape. It’s a bias in the definition which shows men “rape more” because the majority of female sexual abuse against men is ignored in the definition.
I think this device is a reaction to a situation which most of us can barely imagine — a society where violent gang rape has become so common that many women have experienced it not just once but multiple times in their lives, from what I’ve read. Where women live in fear of gang rape constantly because it is happening all around them, and to them, constantly, and there is little they can do about it. Women have to leave their homes and walk to work, to get food, to get water, etc. Their husbands and fathers and brothers are… Read more »
Sorry, meant to type “MOST rapes in the U.S. are committed by acquaintances…”
I think you’ve hit he nail on the head.
I realize that this is dangerous territory I’m treading on, But I think for many North American men there is an anxiety that their actions could be misconstrued as rape, that they might not be able to stop. I don’t think this is a conscious fear, but it gets represented as men being “slave to their hormones.”” If I’m off base here, I apologize.
i think people should keep in mind that this device was not invented as a response to “date rape” or sexual encounters where consent is ambiguous or could be misconstrued (e.g. drunken hookups), it was invented in response to an epidemic if violent gang rape in Africa where groups of men go around with the express intention of attacking and raping women as a kind of recreational activity. That said, apparently the device has never been manufactured or sold.
No, i understood that.
I still think, however, that most sane men have what can only be described as a fear of raping someone, or being seen as a rapist. Does that make any sense?
yes, that makes sense , although it does surprise me if it’s true that mist men fear being inadvertent rapists — just in my person experience , most men don ‘t seem to be afraid of pushing to get sex. I don’t mean they are “rapists” — not at all — but most guys I’ve dated or hung around with have been willing to be assertive when they want sex. Of course that doesn’t mean they aren’t also afraid of being a rapist, just that they haven’t given me any indication of that fear.
I’ll tell you an experience that I just had a few nights ago. I had a friend over and we were watching movies and we started cuddling. Later in the night I had my hand around her should and she takes it and puts is right in the middle of her chest. I freak out a bit and say, “Let me know if I’m doing something you don’t approve of.” Her reply. “I put your hand there didn’t I?” Of course that doesn’t mean they aren’t also afraid of being a rapist, just that they haven’t given me any indication… Read more »
‘ yes, that makes sense , although it does surprise me if it’s true that mist men fear being inadvertent rapists — just in my person experience , most men don ‘t seem to be afraid of pushing to get sex. I don’t mean they are “rapists” — not at all — but most guys I’ve dated or hung around with have been willing to be assertive when they want sex. Of course that doesn’t mean they aren’t also afraid of being a rapist, just that they haven’t given me any indication of that fear. ‘ Have you tryed asking… Read more »
most guys I’ve dated or hung around with have been willing to be assertive when they want sex. The word “willing” can imply that they want to. I am not certain if that was an implication you wanted to make, but I just want to point out that it’s pretty much expected from guys and we’re told constantly that we have to be assertive to get sex (not only by other men, but also by women and not the least as a consequence of women being told constantly that they shouldn’t want sex/be assertive about sex). That doesn’t necessarily mean… Read more »
There have been many advances that were intended for one purpose and twisted toward some other use. If it’s never gone into production, it can’t be considered an advance. Is it simply a wish or is she perhaps sparking an idea for an intrepid inventor.
…it was invented in response to an epidemic if violent gang rape in Africa where groups of men go around with the express intention of attacking and raping women as a kind of recreational activity. That said, apparently the device has never been manufactured or sold. Assuming that “gang rape” means more than one attacker/rapist is present, that makes this invention’s prospects even worse if it’s intended for use where that’s the common threat. One of the perks is supposed to be incapacitating the rapist long enough to give an opportunity to escape, so that’s nullified if other attackers are… Read more »
No it doesn’t seem effective to me at all for a myriad of reasons. I think the inventor may have been hoping that its existence would just be a deterrent. I took a women’s self-defense class years ago and they did not recommend carrying weapons because it is to easy to lose control of a weapon and have it turned against you. The best self defense we learned was avoiding unsafe situations, trusting your instincts, and making a huge amount of noise if attacked, with the idea that either help will arrive, you can quickly get free and run away,… Read more »
What would help the most is to find out why ANY violence there happens. There are wars, warlords running the show so a stable government free from corruption needs to be put in place. Once a stable government is in you need a stable society, one that isn’t in conflict all the damn time, and then you can start to get the equality messages spread and hopefully get both men n women to stop harming each other or at least lower it. Rape isn’t anything special in wartorn countries, there is bad shit going on EVERYWHERE, rape, torture, killings, etc.… Read more »
@ Sarah “The actual self defense techniques they taught us, like foot stomping or eye gouging, never struck me as being particularly effective against a determined attacker, especially not one with a weapon.” I saw a woman’s self defense class once. It was held in my high school lunch room and I wasn’t impressed with the self defense techniques taught. I’m convinced that they were intended to make women feel that they could defend themselves somewhat at least to the point where they could get away. You know, give them confidence. I was the attacker in a women’s self defense… Read more »
Sarah, agreed. My cynical thought as for why the Rape X wouldn’t be effective? Because anyone sociopathic enough to rape as the folks are raping in SA could go anally or orally or use a gun or object to hurt the woman. Or utilize a child or sibling or parent against her. Or check between her legs. Any victim would basically need some kind of shock field surrounding the body to keep people away on every level, given the amount of creativity people put into assaulting others. This is a pathology there (in SA and in areas where this level… Read more »
I’m not skilled enough to write that article, but I figure it’s an article or series that would do some good, or I hope it would, rather then getting people all riled up and spewing about how women hate men or how men are all rapists because neither pole is true. I’m not qualified to write that article, either, being just a guy with opinions and a keyboard, not a journalist or academic. I hope, however, you didn’t consider this article one of those riling up, spewing types that’s calling women misandrist for doing something about the pathology of rape.… Read more »
Marcus’ article was pretty balanced. He didn’t make an article with an aim toward pointing out that women are misandrist. One or two misogynistic woman-fearing men in these comments did. Marcus is dead right on all accounts in this article, as are you, Julie. This rape-X device is an important piece of art, as Marcus says. It’s something to help people imagine a way to protect themselves but it will never actually protect anyone. If he puts his penis inside her to get this thing stuck, she’s already been raped. Perhaps not as deeply, but my guess is that the… Read more »
I don’t think she intended it as art. She tried to distribute the durin h Wold Cup.
I don’t think the inventor intended it as art, either, but given it’s lack of commercial potential, I still think that’s the most accurate way to categorize it, based on the strong reactions it has provoked just from seeing a picture and/or reading a description of what it does. I hadn’t heard of any attempted distribution, but I’d be interested to read more if you can dig up a citation. If she did, I’m really curious whether and how it was tested for safety first, since it would seem recklessly dangerous to just start distributing them without showing them to… Read more »
When I first read about this in 2010, I was pretty aghast because I feared that innocent men could have the double whammy of being attacked and also branded a rapist. The… Strong reaction I got to my opinion was what made me realize that I needed to think more deeply about women and feminism. Ultimately I think the biggest problem is its impracticality, and if it was actually implemented it would lead to an escalation of violence in rape. As well, I think that it shows a cultural difference. In South Africa, rape is more commonly commited by strangers,… Read more »
“it could also be used by vindictive women to punish partners for whatever wrongdoing they decide merits some phallic mangling as retribution.”
I think this is quite possible and probably more likely than catching rapists, but my first thought was what if she forgot it was in there. My second thought was wouldn’t rapists just start turning them around. There’s more than one point of entry.
‘ but my first thought was what if she forgot it was in there ‘
I dont think its likely, but would you not feel it, when you caress the woman down below? Or do you go directly to action?
“I dont think its likely, but would you not feel it, when you caress the woman down below? Or do you go directly to action?”
I’d kind of like to not feel it. My philosophy is to get her hers first so I’d probably see it, but I suspect that some guys don’t operate that way.
‘get her hers first ‘
Im not a English speaker so I am a bit confused by this? do you mean, you go straight to action or oral? Anyways nevermind. Its none of my business. Ok, im more for long foreplays, but we are fortunately all different.
Mike L says that ‘the problem is the idea that I am inherently dangerous simply because I am a man’ I understand that sentiment, and I see his frustration with the ‘men haters’. But still, it seems to me, that it is the men who are busy killing and terrorizing the rest of the world’s population (women and children) in wars and gang land violence. It is true that there are female soldiers and politicians, but the majority of rulers and people in power are male. Looking at Syria – which side of the conflict offers peace and protection for… Read more »
Looking at Syria – which side of the conflict offers peace and protection for women, the old and children?
why did you leave out the noncombatant men, from that list?
Because you’re assuming a level of intelligence from the writer that does not exist.
The majority of child abuse is perpetrated by women. Would you say women are dangerous to kids? Have the same fear of women being alone with kids as you fear violence with men?
I thought it was about 40%, have you got the reference for majority? Or is it due to the fact that the majority of female paedophiles rape boys, and boys are much more likely to not report the abuse, therefore we can infer that women probably perpetrate most child abuse?
In all honesty, this shouldn’t surprise anyone. Women have far more access to children than men.
57% or so female last I checked overall, mostly neglect and physical abuse. The rate could be much higher given the piss-poor reporting of female perpetrated sexual violence as you say.
If I remember I’ll try find the stats when I’m not half asleep.
These stats are as true as they can be (statistics are easily manipulated and always vary). But yes, women are with children more, and there are far more women who are full-time single mothers, so children are with mothers significantly more, as a whole.
However, this is called correlation, not causation. This does not mean that women are more violent. Which I believe is Archy’s point.
Well my point was to show women can be violent, and to one group they are the biggest threat (kids). Is it really fair though to treat ALL women as dangerous to kids because of this, similar to how people are suggesting all men are dangerous to women. The reason I bring this up in comments often is to try get women to empathize how it feels to be a man in society, seen as a criminal, beast, etc. Could you imagine your kids (or others) finding out the stats on child abuse and having them be fearful around you.… Read more »
I used to enjoy making goofy faces at babies in store lines and talking to small children etc., until several of my female friends who were new mothers told me that they don’t like it when ANY strangers show interest in their babies and children. Including women these days. There have been too many stories in the news about female kidnappers who steal babies or who help pedophile boyfriends and so on. So now I ignore other people’s children because I don’t want to make anyone uncomfortable. I think we live in a crappy society where all strangers are viewed… Read more »
I think society is going a sad direction. Deep down when babies look at me and smile, I cannot help but smile back. I dunno how they do it but they bring this positive energy (when they aren’t crying n screaming, my ears bleed!). But being an adult male, who is single with no kids, I avoid children…just makes me too uncomfortable wondering if parents will think something dodgy is going on. Doesn’t matter that I would do my best to keep the child safe if danger was around, I still feel nervous even around my cousins n friends kids.… Read more »
@ Sarah “I used to enjoy making goofy faces at babies in store lines and talking to small children etc., until several of my female friends who were new mothers told me that they don’t like it when ANY strangers show interest in their babies” I still wave, smile, and say hi to little children. I’ve never noticed a bad reaction from people. It might be because I’ve always done so as a reaction to a child smiling or waving or talking to me. It would just feel cruel to ignore them. I suppose I could be making the mothers… Read more »
The 2006 health and human services child maltreatment report shows that mothers commit 70% of all child abuse (even when you include sexual) and 70% of all child slayings.
A substantial amount of abuse and slayings are done by both parents. However you split that difference though mothers always come out substantially higher than fathers.
@ Mike “thought it was about 40%, have you got the reference for majority?” Women commit the majority of child abuse with mothers perpetrating at about twice the rate of fathers. “Women comprised a larger percentage of all unique perpetrators than men: 53.6 percent compared to 45.2 percent. “ http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/canstats.pdf#Page=4&view=Fit “Nearly two-fifths (37.2%) of victims were maltreated by their mother acting alone. One-fifth (19.1%) of victims were maltreated by their father acting alone.” http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm10/cm10.pdf#page=31 Mothers perpetrate about double the child fatalities as fathers (359 to 170). Mothers and other (like boyfriends) perpetrate 5 times the number of child fatalities than… Read more »
“And I’m not entirely joking.”
I know, because you’re a sexist.
She seems to be okay with the situation in Syria:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asma_al-Assad#section_3
Notice that she is a completely modern woman.
As well, Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi, etc etc
Anna, you put far to many stereotypes. Yes there are guys out there who do bad stuff, but there are millions who dont hurt a fly. But I know, its not your fault, the visible few always gets more attention than the “gray” mass. And not to make a boysvsgirls issue, but the ethnical violence are carried out by both men and women. Its not just a guy thingy. But beside that, if this thing, RapeX can save some women, then its welcome. But the only issue I have is what if the rapist check the woman inside? unless he… Read more »
“I suggest a curfew for all men; they should not be allowed to carry guns at any time and not allowed outside except in company of their mothers.
And I’m not entirely joking.”
The number of violent men compared to the number of men is quite small, yet you have few qualms with punishing all men. Women kill also, but I take it you find the amount acceptable.
John, Danny et all…regarding curfew on men – are you not aware that there is a virtual curfew on women going out alone day and night in many parts of the world?
And I do think something is wrong with the fact that men terrorize huge part of the human population. yes, they gun down other men ,too. Thank you for that observation, Jamesq.
‘ John, Danny et all…regarding curfew on men – are you not aware that there is a virtual curfew on women going out alone day and night in many parts of the world? ‘ And so do guys, and lot of guys gets also attacked. For me there is no difference between a woman who get hurt and a man who get hurt. There are all the same. But I know society think differently… ‘ And I do think something is wrong with the fact that men terrorize huge part of the human population. ‘ Correction, SOME men. Not all… Read more »
Blurpo, are you for real? For example, I am sure that not all Afghan men treat their women badly, but the system will not allow women to get a proper education or marry/or NOT marry at will! And that system is created and enforced by men!
What is it you do not get?
‘Blurpo, are you for real? For example, I am sure that not all Afghan men treat their women badly, but the system will not allow women to get a proper education or marry/or NOT marry at will! And that system is created and enforced by men! What is it you do not get?’ Yes Anna im for real???? why do ask? O_o Anyways, a system is a system. And its enforced by EVERYBODY. Not just men. And beside that I still see no difference between a man who suffer and a woman. And still you make gross generalizations, and please… Read more »
Fully aware of it and I’m also aware that treating men the same isn’t the solution. It’s the same reason why over on the post that JR Reed did about his experiences with taking his daughter shopping there wan’t anyone pushing for women to be treated with the same suspicion.
Just because bad things happen to women in one culture does not mean that it is OK for the same bad things to happen to men in this one. That is just reverse sexism. All violence against everyone needs to stop. it is not men vs women. Also other cultures are complicated. I remember seeing a documentary about an Afghan woman’s rights activist. She said the three problems for women in Afghanistan are; The Americans, the Taliban and the Warlords. Once the Americans are gone, we will just have to deal with the warlords and the Taliban. There is only… Read more »
Sorry, where did I advocate violence against men?
And regarding this Rape-x thing. I bet it was invented by someone who was hurting very badly. It is in my opinion not a solution. It can easily be used against the woman wearing it, she can get beaten up or killed by the infuriated would-be-rapist and also there are many other orifices to choose from.
@ Anna I never said that you advocated violence against men (I know you’re not accusing me of such. It’s just a good place to put the comment and I think illustrates the problem that people have with your comment.), however, I believe that your statement devalued the lives of men as compared with those of women. You may be surprised, but when a woman kills, she chooses a male victim about 75% of the time. Women killed 405 men in 2010 according to the FBI uniform crime statistics. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl06.xls When you argue (only partly jokingly) that men should have… Read more »
Are you really under the impression it is much better for men? Men are THE MOST AT RISK GROUP in regards to violence. Deaths from violence is 4x more likely for a male than a female, most violence is male-male. So whilst it’s true the majority of violence is perpetrated by men, it’s also true men are the majority of victims so the average guy who isn’t violent is in more danger than a woman in stranger-based violence. The big difference is people try to become big brother to women more often, telling them not to go out, it’s unsafe… Read more »
Silly boy, there already IS a curfew in place for women!
it is called Sharia law. It is called ‘ don’t wear that short skirt, you only have yourself to blame if men ‘get the wrong idea” it is called ‘ Don’t walk home alone after dark, take a taxi’
And if men insist on killing each other – how do you blame this on women? You know, I agree with Bob Dylan (yes, he’s male) when he sang about the universal soldier. If it wasn’t for all these obedient little brainwashed boys, the world would be so much safer.
‘ If it wasn’t for all these obedient little brainwashed boys, the world would be so much safer. ‘
Some has no choice. Some are kidnapped from their villages as kids drugget and sent to war. Others who doesent follow wollingly are shot on the place. And what about female soldiers???
Ok I dont want to give you the impression im picking on you. Just wanted to specify.
*willingly, not wollingly…lol
Society is to blame. Women are not helpless little sheep with no influence. Who do you think raises those obedient lil soldiers you’re so fond of talking about?
@ Anna “It is true that there are female soldiers and politicians, but the majority of rulers and people in power are male.” “And if men insist on killing each other – how do you blame this on women?” This is one of my pet peeves. I’ll often see people make both arguments in the same discussion. Women are the majority of the electorate in the United States. If men make up the majority of government officials in the United States than women are doing it to themselves so how can you blame the men It’s probably similar in every… Read more »
I agree Archy, its the neighbour grass is greener syndrome. Anna points to the Sharia, but the sharia is there also for men. So we can see that its not a system enforced by a gender on another (simplicistic/box thinking), but a system who enforces everybody under ancient religious rules. Its not so difficoult to understand actually. But to really grasp it, we should leave the word to muslems who understand better the culture. Because its to easy to value everything through western values and totally ignoring the local cultural reality. Lot of moslem women are actually offended when a… Read more »
@ Anna “John, Danny et all…regarding curfew on men – are you not aware that there is a virtual curfew on women going out alone day and night in many parts of the world?” It’s a self imposed curfew if it exists at all at least in the United States. I’ve been out to enough clubs to know that women go out at night without male escorts. If I’m too afraid to start my own business, can I claim to be a victim because I work for someone else? I’m half Asian. I grew up in a white neighborhood in… Read more »
First off: But still, it seems to me, that it is the men who are busy killing and terrorizing the rest of the world’s population (women and children) in wars and gang land violence. The men are the ones busy killing? Where exactly do innocent men civilians fit into your categorization of the entire human race? Or do they simply not exist because they aren’t bad and non-bad men don’t exist? I can imagine someone thinking that since when it comes to reporting death tolls it’s apparently okay to only count the women and children. It is true that there… Read more »
When Golda Meir was asked to place a curfew on women to help end a series of rapes, Meir replied by stating, “But it is the men who are attacking the women. If there is to be a curfew, let the men stay at home.”
I couldn’t agree with this logic more
‘ I couldn’t agree with this logic more ‘
Thats actually not logic, just idiocy.
Again, correlation not causation. People, everyone here needs to go look up the difference between correlation and causation. Even in the best cases, it is a chicken-and-egg scenario. Men have been in power a long time in these nations, and men have been the ones fighting wars as long as history has documented wars. That does not mean men are *inherently* violent. It doesn’t mean they love war. It means that there are institutions and deep systems in place that *put men at war*. That doesn’t mean women don’t suffer. Women suffer hugely, massively, in war. Beyond our Western comprehension.… Read more »
And the often forgotten part of war. It’s mostly for resources, for which men often gather FOR their families, including women. Women play a part in war, everyone does, it’s society that goes to war, not men….men are usually just the ones who do the fighting and a few get to choose on BEHALF of society when to goto war. In Australia, the U.S, everywhere that has been colonized by outside invaders, everyone living after the invasion has benefitted by it. We get land, resources etc because the aboriginals of that land were no match to the English, etc. I… Read more »
“And the often forgotten part of war. It’s mostly for resources, for which men often gather FOR their families, including women.” I’ve always thought that strange. Women will blame men for wars, but refuse to recognize how they benefited. If the European settlers stole the land from the Native Americans and that was a bad thing, why haven’t their descendents (meaning the people who decried the taking) returned the land and/or made restitution for the resources taken.? Sex taken under threat of death is rape. Land taken by treaty under threat of death not so much, when one has personally… Read more »
Going off topic for a bit. People, everyone here needs to go look up the difference between correlation and causation. Even in the best cases, it is a chicken-and-egg scenario. Men have been in power a long time in these nations, and men have been the ones fighting wars as long as history has documented wars. That does not mean men are *inherently* violent. It doesn’t mean they love war. It means that there are institutions and deep systems in place that *put men at war*. So how does this reminder play out in regards to the regular statement that… Read more »
Anna, You are being overly selective in your statistics. Are the majority of politicians male? Sure. But the majority of the homeless are also male. The majority of th victims of violence in most countries are ALSO male (men 15-25 have always been the most murdered group). Meanwhile women enjoy almost universally longer life expectancies no matter where you look. Because you are defining power so narrowly, you are only seeing the result that you want to see. Your biases feed your definitions, which then reinforce your biases. If I see two groups, one of which is disproportionately homeless, murdered,… Read more »
Mike L
The stereotype of a ‘strong’, man is for instance James Bond, a man equipped to kill, seduce and save the world.
The definition of a ‘strong’ woman ( still talking in bumper stickers) is someone who nurtures and feeds and heals. Most ‘strong’ women are anonymous, a salt of the earth character, our mothers and grandmothers.
So we have two archetypes, the strong male who defends and kills. And
the nurturing female, who gives life.
Do you still not see my point?
Killing is regarded as more ‘powerful’ than giving life. How did this happen?
Anna,
I am talking about the real world (seriously, look up homelessness rates, life expectancies, etc.) and you are talking about stereotypes.
If you cannot understand why working with stereotypes and ignoring statistics is inherently problematic, then I cannot help you.
The real world is built on accepted values. The prevailing values in the Muslim, Jewish and Christian societies are that strong equals the capacity for violence and killing. Just look up the ‘statistics’ of Hollywood movies or popular books, computer games etc. The same men who advocate dying as an act of patriotism also write sentimental elegies about the horrors of war.
Go figure.
Strange Anna, You embrace these stereotypes (clinging hard) when they make your point. Once again, you’re ignoring the 98% of men who realize these are works of fiction and have never harmed anybody, except self-defense. You continue to ignore the billions of men who break your stereotype by never committing violence and even self-sacrifice for their families (95% of on-the-job deaths are men) or for complete strangers (99% of volunteer firefighters are men). The truth of the matter is that the good that men do, vastly vastly overwhelms the bad that men do. But, you prefer to see the tip… Read more »
Anna,
Your argument does not make sense.
As popularly discussed here and elsewhere, the US is built on the “accepted value” that hard work is all it takes to succeed. Yet time and again we see that factors beyond “hard work,” such as being born to a poor single mother in the inner city, actually have a profound impact on success.
When you substitute stereotypes for the real world then you miss these things. This is a fundamental error, and you are making the same mistake in your analysis of men and power.
‘ The real world is built on accepted values. The prevailing values in the Muslim, Jewish and Christian societies are that strong equals the capacity for violence and killing. Just look up the ‘statistics’ of Hollywood movies or popular books, computer games etc. The same men who advocate dying as an act of patriotism also write sentimental elegies about the horrors of war. Go figure. ‘ Reality check, let me go out and kill few random people and tell me what happens: will I get arrested and spent the rest of my life behind bars (or get executed) or will… Read more »
you forgot to add that majority of violent crimes is done by males… one musnt accuse another of selectivism if they are not willing to hold up to their own standards.
I do not understand your comment, I never suggested that men were not responsible for violence.
But we also need to ask who benefits.
When the girlfriend of a man who deals drugs benefits from his income, she is complicit in the violence that he uses in the course of his dealings. Yet we point at him and say “You cause violence,” without also looking at her and saying “You benefit from violence directed at men.”
The quote from the rape victim really says it all to me.
So long as people believe that my penis is a “deadly weapon” we are never going to see eye-to-eye.
This, to me, is the much larger problem here.
Honestly, I wouldn’t care if this device went into production. The much larger problem is the idea that I am inherently dangerous simply because I am a man. That mentality kills my otherwise sympathetic feelings each and every time.
There are plenty of gun owners who don’t go around killing people but that doesn’t mean guns aren’t a weapon. Just because you don’t use your penis to inflict physical damage, doesn’t mean it’s not used this way (as a weapon) by others.
Except that guns are designed to be exclusively weapons. Penises have a different purpose…
same thing goes for teeth then. Most people dont go biting other humans, but that doesent mean you cant use them as weapons to hurt other people. Listen I know what you are saying. But a penis is NOT a weapon. It cant knock you off, it cant cut your throath , you cant use it as a gun (you probably arrested if you wave it around), you cant knife somebody down, you cant even use it as a bat. Before somebody can penetrate a woman, that person need to incapacitate her. So from this point, hands are more dangerous.… Read more »
There are plenty of gun owners who don’t go around killing people but that doesn’t mean guns aren’t a weapon. Just because you don’t use your penis to inflict physical damage, doesn’t mean it’s not used this way (as a weapon) by others. Guns are created for the express purpose of being a weapon to hurt others. The penis was not created with that in mind. At its basic function the penis has two purposes. To deposit semen inside of a woman for procreation and to allow for urine to be removed from the body. Also even when someone using… Read more »
Would you say vaginas are weapons?
I would say that to the degree that a vagina can rape a man it is a weapon. However, the force and brutality of many, if not most, rapes against women creates a different type of scenario. I’m not saying that rape against men by women isn’t horrible, I’m saying, the “deadly weapon” thing – rape can actually kill a woman, and it has, from bleeding. Certainly there are ways to imagine rape against a man killing him, it’s certainly a fuck of a lot harder to conceive of. Eventually good studies will be made showing what female on male… Read more »
I understand your comment, but calling it a weapon can also be dehumanizing to men. Our hands, bodies etc can be weapons, but if you read the comment it’s saying ALL men are carrying a “deadly weapon” in their pants, the words I myself find dehumanizing as if we are rape machines and not decent humans. The majority of men do not rape, saying all of us have deadly weapons is insulting and insensitive on their part. Why should Mike L have sympathy for someone treating him as a degrading beast, a warrior carrying around weapons 24/7, do babies have… Read more »
Archy, (and also in reply to Mike L. below at 8/7, 2:34am) I hear what you’re saying, and know the feeling. However, I think you’re putting an interpretation on the victim quote that it doesn’t deserve, and that’s partly (maybe even mostly) my fault as a writer for not framing it properly with enough context and interpretation of my own. It was an honest mistake, as I was trying to use a quote that she specifically told me I could use, while being minimalist in sharing or paraphrasing anything else she told me because I did not want to violate… Read more »
AH ok, that’s understandable. Words have have a heavy impact depending on how they are used.
“Mike L, that you lose sympathy for someone because they’d been physically tortured with a penis as a tool for harm scares me.” This is such an extreme mischaracterization of what I actually wrote that it is hard to believe this is not a purposeful attack. What I actually wrote was: “The much larger problem is the idea that I am inherently dangerous simply because I am a man. That mentality kills my otherwise sympathetic feelings each and every time.” The attack does not eliminate my empathy. Developing a hateful mentality does. Claiming I wrote anything else is clearly wrong.… Read more »
I don’t think “women using it intentionally to punish a non-rapist man” to be a particulary persuasive argument against this device. It’s far more easy and safer for women wanting to mangle or mutilate a man’s penis to just take a knife or scissors to it while he is asleep. It’s reminiscent of the myth from the Vietnam war of VC prostitutes lining their vagina with razor blades (one would think it would be much safer and more effective to hide a gun or knife under the pillow for instance). This again I suspect came from a combination of the… Read more »
Hence the argument that it doesn’t stop rape because there has to be one penetration to “catch” the penis is not an sufficient arguement against it in my view. I agree that’s not a compelling argument against it. However, my (intended) point was more about establishing that the corollary also fails, meaning it’s incorrect to argue for it on the basis that it prevents the rape of the wearer. At best, it would interrupt it and give the victim a chance to escape, which would be great, but that’s not prevention. I agree with the rest of your comments, and… Read more »
I’m not skeptical of the argument at all. One, you ignore human squeamishness. This ISN’T cutting a penis off – the women don’t have to get that messy to do it. Plus, it isn’t nearly as severe looking. I grew up as a male – I know how quick some girls were to kick you in the testicles for any perceived slight. I have no problems imagining a scenario where some women talks herself into believe that using one of these on a boyfriend she’s mad at would just be a prank – the equivalent of giving them a dick-splinter… Read more »
Who’s to say female rapists won’t use this against men? It’d be a good way to deflect the crime and blame him for it. I guarantee the rate of super violent physical assaults would increase if these were used, a rapist getting that on his penis….I wouldn’t be surprised if he beat her to death over it. A lot of rape happens in relationships does it not? So those rapes would probably not have these devices in effect, it might give a sense of security to women but still it would mean they’re going to be penetrated before it works.… Read more »
Who’s to say female rapists won’t use this against men? It’d be a good way to deflect the crime and blame him for it. Maybe I’m being naïve, but I don’t see this being favored among female rapists. Assuming a female rapist wants the sex act to last beyond the first stroke, this device would interfere with that goal. I can, however, imagine that in the vindictive kind of scenario that’s been mentioned, part of the scheme might be not only to injure the man with the device, but to frame him for rape, since it’s made to protect against… Read more »
Maybe I’m being naïve, but I don’t see this being favored among female rapists. Assuming a female rapist wants the sex act to last beyond the first stroke, this device would interfere with that goal.
Yeah. Seems unlikely. Not making much sense.
Like you, I can see an “attentive rapist,” a sadist who needs to hurt and traumatize his victim, using one of these devices against his victim in ways I will leave to the imagination.
Yeah, I didn’t feel like painting that picture, but it’s not too hard to imagine some truly sadistic ways it could be turned against the victim. Having had the misfortune to ponder that while composing this, I don’t recommend it. Go look at a LOLcat instead.
From this straight to lolcats, cold turkey, is truly traumatic. I had to taper off with some fist fight YouTubes, then a little 12 O’Clock High (love those planes), then Bugs Bunny walloping Elmer Fudd…