EPTthe intentions of the product are good, the implications are bad
Anti Rape Underwear - Page 2
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
mizU
United States12125 Posts
the intentions of the product are good, the implications are bad | ||
|
AnachronisticAnarchy
United States2957 Posts
On November 06 2013 11:21 mizU wrote: i'm just saying that this approach is kind of backwards seeing as how we saw something similar to this (chastity belts) oh a few hundred years ago when women wore them because they "obviously" didn't have control of their bodies the intentions of the product are good, the implications are bad The implications are only bad for the most mind-bogglingly retarded glue-slurping idiots (I'm accusing the people you seem to be concerned about, not you). Buying a gun to defend yourself from murderers doesn't justify murder, doesn't make murder acceptable and doesn't encourage victim-blaming in murder cases. Same deal for this. Literally the only difference here is that this form of self-defense happens to be wrapped around your vagina. You might as well advocate the destruction of all forms of defense on the grounds that they encourage the occurrence of, and tolerance of, violent acts, which is a notion that defies common sense. | ||
|
mizU
United States12125 Posts
i'm not saying the product causes the crime but i definitely like the idea of a barbed condom (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/06/20/south.africa.female.condom/) more than rape proof underwear | ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
On November 06 2013 10:24 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: Not sure how this would work given how rape works. Rapists rape a person due to an extreme urge, and the rape is made possible through them obtaining a profound physical advantage over their victim. Maybe this would work if the rapist was feeling really rushed, but it wouldn't work otherwise. Hell, this is easily thwarted by being a rapist who has earned the trust of the victim and thus doesn't need to drug the victim to get her somewhere private. Should he encounter the rape-resistant underwear, he can simply force the woman to remove it before raping her. All of this is, of course, disregarding what an unstable individual may do should he have his desire to rape someone thwarted. If he gets really angry, one may be better just taking the rape, even if you've been drugged out. All what you're saying is definitely possible, but did you watch the video? At time 0:52, they point out that "studies show that resisting sexual assault lessens the chance of a rape taking place without increasing the violence of the attack". So the product certainly aids in the resistance of the sexual assault; and I think the studies are showing that women can resist and won't necessarily be forced if they resist enough. So yes its possible in other scenarios where they are trusting of their partners and so on and don't feel the need to wear it. But its definitely a positive step in other types of situations. Nice product! | ||
|
Dazed.
Canada3301 Posts
On November 06 2013 10:31 Shiragaku wrote: So two things that dont occur, and a [bolded] imaginary term which is nothing more than prudish whining that humans find sexually attractive people...sexually attractive. Cool.We are mostly talking about victim blaming, sexual objectification, and trivializing the act of rape here. | ||
KwarK
United States41989 Posts
On November 06 2013 12:16 Dazed_Spy wrote: So two things that dont occur, and a [bolded] imaginary term which is nothing more than prudish whining that humans find sexually attractive people...sexually attractive. Cool. Reality seems to have passed you by. | ||
|
Scarecrow
Korea (South)9172 Posts
On November 06 2013 10:25 YoureFired wrote: the rape culture that makes sexual assault accepted in our society. ... wtf, what is this 'rape culture' and since when is assault acceptable? | ||
|
mizU
United States12125 Posts
see also: the steubenville high school case the media said it was such a tragedy because the rapists had such promising lives ahead of them | ||
|
Fuchsteufelswild
Australia2028 Posts
On November 06 2013 12:00 mizU wrote: i was only saying the implications were bad because we seemed to be going backwards in time i'm not saying the product causes the crime but i definitely like the idea of a barbed condom (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/06/20/south.africa.female.condom/) more than rape proof underwear That idea would be good except that potentially, seriously messed-up women could lure men into consensual (beginning of) sex where the well-meaning man could get himself shredded by a psycho witch. EDIT: Removal of the juvenile courts or at least limiting them to only even younger cases would surely help to discourage savage behaviour (such as in that case) from the shitty young weeds of society that do things partly because they feel empowered by more limited punishments and reduced supposed responsibility. Bullshit they're less responsible for their actions when those are the actions. >_< | ||
|
AnachronisticAnarchy
United States2957 Posts
On November 06 2013 12:00 mizU wrote: i was only saying the implications were bad because we seemed to be going backwards in time i'm not saying the product causes the crime but i definitely like the idea of a barbed condom (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/06/20/south.africa.female.condom/) more than rape proof underwear Going backwards in time? I seriously can't even comprehend your logic on this one. No sarcasm, could you please elaborate? I'm trying to come up with potential thought processes you could have used to come to this conclusion and all of them sound too idiotic to be true. Once again, not sarcastic or insulting, I'm actually trying to figure this out. Personally, I agree with the assertion that the barbed condom is a better self-defense method, but only if the female isn't drugged and has a follow-up plan to use that takes advantage of the rapist freaking out about his shredded dick. Come to think of it, pretty much no method based around last-second protection is all that effective outside of something unrealistically potent. As long as the rapist has a superior position of physical strength, the girl is most likely horribly screwed in some fashion. Doesn't have to be rape, if he has a physical advantage he can do anything he wants. Things like barbed condoms are pretty much an irl save roll; if you're luckier than you should be, you might still make it out, but you don't have good odds. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18818 Posts
| ||
|
SagaZ
France3460 Posts
| ||
|
AnachronisticAnarchy
United States2957 Posts
On November 06 2013 13:55 farvacola wrote: It's very simple; there was a time at which female sexual issues were addressed almost exclusively through the notion that women were not to be allowed to be in control of their sexual organs, hence chastity belts and the idea that women are to basically be sold for marriage/procreation. In other words, a woman's sexuality was a thing meant to be divorced from their person and manipulated by exterior objects and men. This device, while certainly not designed with similar intentions, works by making a woman's vagina more difficult to access, and is, effectually, a white flag in the sense that a woman who wears such a thing is basically saying, "I'm willing to wear difficult to remove underwear because I am unable to be in control of access to my sexual organs and I'd like to make the process as time consuming as possible.". Like you said, AA, it amounts to a saving throw, but the issue some might take with this kind of anti-rape protection is that it revolves around dice throwing as opposed to definite improvement. Many would worry, and, given history, perhaps justifiably so, that solutions like rape-proof underwear put the onus for making progress in rape prevention unfairly on the shoulders of women. That last bit makes more sense. Historically speaking, it doesn't seem unlikely that we'll have a repeat. Doesn't mean I agree with the notion, at all really, but I can see how someone would come to think that. Unlike before. The white flag thing seems kind of odd to me, though. Sure, it's a depressing reminder of the current state of affairs, but I don't think a self-defense product should be morally condemned due to some misplaced sense of pride. One can personally prefer to not use it for those reasons, but don't denounce it as a moral wrong. I think I'll try and wrap things up in this thread after this. | ||
|
NovaTheFeared
United States7212 Posts
On November 06 2013 13:55 farvacola wrote: It's very simple; there was a time at which female sexual issues were addressed almost exclusively through the notion that women were not to be allowed to be in control of their sexual organs, hence chastity belts and the idea that women are to basically be sold for marriage/procreation. In other words, a woman's sexuality was a thing meant to be divorced from their person and manipulated by exterior objects and men. This device, while certainly not designed with similar intentions, works by making a woman's vagina more difficult to access, and is, effectually, a white flag in the sense that a woman who wears such a thing is basically saying, "I'm willing to wear difficult to remove underwear because I am unable to be in control of access to my sexual organs and I'd like to make the process as time consuming as possible.". Like you said, AA, it amounts to a saving throw, but the issue some might take with this kind of anti-rape protection is that it revolves around dice throwing as opposed to definite improvement. Many would worry, and, given history, perhaps justifiably so, that solutions like rape-proof underwear put the onus for making progress in rape prevention unfairly on the shoulders of women. I don't think so. It takes a very simple-minded person, someone incapable of realizing we can do more than one thing at a time, to decry development of new tools of self defense. The invention and use of defensive gadgets like this or mace or firearms can easily run concurrent with progressively improving societal norms that hopes to make them unnecessary in the long run. It's actually quite perverse to try to strip potential victims of what they may find, in their own best judgement, to be a worthwhile preventative measure. That said, I don't think this product looks like a particularly effective deterrent. | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
| ||
|
NovaTheFeared
United States7212 Posts
On November 06 2013 14:32 Shiragaku wrote: Whenever I hear guns or self defense/martial arts brought up in a rape discussion, I get pretty damn frustrated due to the lack of understanding those people tend to have about rape. This isn't a rape discussion though, it's a discussion about a self-defense garment. Does that help? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18818 Posts
On November 06 2013 14:26 NovaTheFeared wrote: I don't think so. It takes a very simple-minded person, someone incapable of realizing we can do more than one thing at a time, to decry development of new tools of self defense. The invention and use of defensive gadgets like this or mace or firearms can easily run concurrent with progressively improving societal norms that hopes to make them unnecessary in the long run. It's actually quite perverse to try to strip potential victims of what they may find, in their own best judgement, to be a worthwhile preventative measure. That said, I don't think this product looks like a particularly effective deterrent. It also only takes a simple-minded person to see that women have had control of their body parts turned against them in the name of their own defense. I'm not suggesting that this anti-rape underwear is necessarily an example of this, but belittling folks who take different lessons from history is probably not the best way of convincing them otherwise. | ||
|
Xapti
Canada2473 Posts
Obviously it's possible for it to just cause more problems in a percentage of cases, but it's hard to speculate. I think one thing that is more or less assured would be that some victims may be likely to get minor cuts due to knifes trying to cut the garment, but that's not necessarily a big deal. Thing is, this does not prevent abduction, physical abuse, or murder which I thought is just as high, or higher than plain rape cases (at least in Americas/Europe, maybe not on other continent), and hence logically should not make a person feel much safer (although at least in north america it's not like the danger is very high to begin with) On November 06 2013 14:20 SagaZ wrote: They'll suffer the consequences of doing something stupid like that. More relevantly: if someone gets massively drunk they'll have potentially bigger issues than just peeing their pants (or pooing their pants which I don't think happens? at least to any significant frequency), like getting their face marked up with a marker, being hung over (potentially losing their job), having sex with someone due to to loss of reasoning presuming they do have the dexterity to take it off or voice to get someone else to take it off (which isn't necessarily something I entirely follow, but I'm sure many people do), etc.What if the girl puts that on, gets massively drunk and suddenly need to go take a dump? If you think operating keys to unlock your house is hard when drunk, I can't imagine unbuttoning the pant being easy | ||
|
SheaR619
United States2399 Posts
| ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
Hopefully if they get funded, they'll expand their product line to males. | ||
| ||
