EPT+ Show Spoiler +
albeit quite uncomfy for the poor females i assume...
Anti Rape Underwear - Page 3
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Taekwon
United States8155 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
The bullshit about victim-blaming has gotten to the point where it has lost its basis in reality in many cases. It's not "blaming the victim" to suggest potential preventative measures. It can be but not always... There is a true hazard, rape is a thing that happens - to say that there may be things that women can do to try to avoid being put into that situation is not "blaming the victim". It's a really shitty point to argue because people get overly emotional about this but it's true. I think it's really fucked up that the second you bring the possibility of prevention, people immediately assume that people who don't take those preventative steps are somehow to blame for anything. Or rather, people assume that others assume... IDK, makes sense in my head. Either way, the existence of potential preventative measures doesn't mean that the victim is to blame. Gahd. | ||
|
AnachronisticAnarchy
United States2957 Posts
On November 06 2013 14:36 farvacola wrote: 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. Now that's just bizarre. We used to be controlling them mentally and physically, now we're trying to protect them from some of the worst humanity has to offer. There was no reason to prevent sex and even masturbation, whereas there is definitely a reason to prevent rape. Before, we were making their choices for them, now they make their own choices, albeit driven by necessity. Perhaps you believe the bolded in part because of victim-blaming giving women no choice in the matter, but victim-blaming is not an endemic, all-encompassing attitude. It is common, far, far more than it should be, but definitely not enough for society to have taken control of women's body parts. Even if that did play a part in guiding women's decision making, they'll still make the same choice in the end, because ultimately, one uses stuff like this because one doesn't want to get raped, which is a threat that will continue to exist despite this ivory tower morality. | ||
|
AnachronisticAnarchy
United States2957 Posts
On November 06 2013 14:49 SheaR619 wrote: If this start catching on, I would suspect that rapest just carry scissors with them. It could also be used to threaten and cut the cloth fairly easily. Interesting concept but seem too overly complex imo to wear and go to the bathroom. Then again women spend 10000 hours deciding cloths and time in the bathroom so why does a few extra minute or so matter lol. In the end it better to have then not to have I suppose. Scissors and knives have a really hard time cutting through the underwear. The video demonstrated that the underwear has an extraordinarily high level of resistance. I think one would need to use something like a serrated blade to cut it. Also, the garment is extremely tight-fitting. Not easy to cut into unless you don't care about the girl you're cutting into, in which case the underwear probably wouldn't have helped anyways. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18856 Posts
| ||
|
targ
Malaysia445 Posts
On November 06 2013 11:40 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: 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. Eh I was actually thinking what you were thinking, and was about to post something similar. The analogy I wanted to use was that if I went around on a bike, I'd lock it when I park it, and that doesn't mean that I am to blame if it is stolen. But when I was writing this out, I started thinking: ok if everyone doesn't lock their bike and one gets stolen, everyone will blame the thief, however if everyone starts locking theirs and I didn't lock mine, when mine gets stolen I can see people saying "you dummy, why didn't you lock it?" So now I'm not so sure it doesn't contribute to a victim blaming mindset. | ||
|
GreEny K
Germany7312 Posts
On November 06 2013 10:17 KwarK wrote: This doesn't help against rape because a rapist generally isn't holding a knife, is a family member, partner or ex partner and raped you because you assumed that he wasn't a rapist. If you think this helps you don't know how rape works in the western world. Maybe in South Africa though. They made this underwear to help prevent date rape. Although rape by family members, and trusted ones may occur more often, they are at least helping prevent some portion of rapes. All types of rapes need solving. | ||
|
AnachronisticAnarchy
United States2957 Posts
On November 06 2013 15:00 farvacola wrote: I meant in a historic sense, particularly since the chastity belt=anti-rape underwear bit lines up so well. Again, I'm not saying that this is the case, only that I've heard similar arguments from women who are against measures like this, and I don't think "it's for their own good" is really gonna cut it as a reason. Hilarious. I mean, if they prefer not to use it due to personal preference that's fine, but if they morally condemn it due to some ivory tower moral grandstanding then... hmmm. While it is certainly not their fault that there are some really shitty guys out there, that doesn't mean it's not their problem, because those really shitty guys are going to make it their problem. Sort of reminds me of how the inventor of super-wheat was sometimes condemned for the drastic increase in food supply he made possible causing some instability. His response was that the Africans didn't give a shit, they were starving to death. On November 06 2013 15:02 targ wrote: Eh I was actually thinking what you were thinking, and was about to post something similar. The analogy I wanted to use was that if I went around on a bike, I'd lock it when I park it, and that doesn't mean that I am to blame if it is stolen. But when I was writing this out, I started thinking: ok if everyone doesn't lock their bike and one gets stolen, everyone will blame the thief, however if everyone starts locking theirs and I didn't lock mine, when mine gets stolen I can see people saying "you dummy, why didn't you lock it?" So now I'm not so sure it doesn't contribute to a victim blaming mindset. I suppose the difference here is the scale of the loss. If your son died because he was drunk driving, the fact that he was dumb enough to be drunk driving would be overshadowed by the fact that your son DIED. The sheer pain of that fact would override any irritation at your son's mistake. A person that uses victim blaming using your rationale is a person that is incapable of sympathizing with the victim appropriately, meaning that in order to defeat the victim blaming, one would need to attack a different issue entirely. | ||
|
Capped
United Kingdom7236 Posts
On November 06 2013 10:49 decemberscalm wrote: I can only see this being useful for date rape, for anything else a preventive measure seems like it would be much more effective. Really? because thats what the OP's talking about  | ||
|
Nacl(Draq)
United States302 Posts
On November 06 2013 10:17 KwarK wrote: This doesn't help against rape because a rapist generally isn't holding a knife, is a family member, partner or ex partner and raped you because you assumed that he wasn't a rapist. If you think this helps you don't know how rape works in the western world. Maybe in South Africa though. Yea. According to US statistics less than 4% of rapes in the US occur outdoors. Most of them are from people the person being raped trusts/trusted. This is just a marketing against fear. Side note! Men out at night that are dangerous are not likely to rape you but more likely (a lot more! Like a lot lot more like a ton more like almost infinitely greater) to mug you. Why you ask? Well rape is a felony which can get you 25 years in prison and people hunt down rapists like crazy while mugging is a misdemeanor, unless life was threatened, and almost no one cares about finding a mugger. | ||
|
SheaR619
United States2399 Posts
On November 06 2013 14:58 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: Scissors and knives have a really hard time cutting through the underwear. The video demonstrated that the underwear has an extraordinarily high level of resistance. I think one would need to use something like a serrated blade to cut it. Also, the garment is extremely tight-fitting. Not easy to cut into unless you don't care about the girl you're cutting into, in which case the underwear probably wouldn't have helped anyways. Holy shit wouldnt be surprise if this stuff is bullet proof too. Re watched the video and see what you mean by it being tough to cut. Still seems like a pain in the ass to wear though :/ | ||
|
Nacl(Draq)
United States302 Posts
On November 06 2013 10:25 Dazed_Spy wrote: How would it even help then? I dont know, I dont see many rapists being dissuaded because the underwear is 'hard to pull off' or whatever. At most this will just encourage frustrated beatings in tandem with sexual assault. There have been several cases where a women was found lying about being raped because her clothes were too difficult for anyone but her to remove. So if she gets raped while wearing this it might backfire. | ||
|
Nacl(Draq)
United States302 Posts
On November 06 2013 12:21 Scarecrow wrote: ... wtf, what is this 'rape culture' and since when is assault acceptable? Rape isn't acceptable. Being mugged is so people are afraid. If you are raped they will search for people and bring them in for questioning simply based on matching partial appearance of the culprit. If you are mugged they won't look for anyone. the only "acceptable rape" (i don't find it acceptable but courts do) is when an underage male rapes an older women. The man gets charged but since he is a minor receives little to no jail time. | ||
|
Gruntt
United States175 Posts
Kinda have to lol @ people who are like.. arguing against an anti-rape concept... so.... lol @ you derps.  Explain it away all ya want, just because you don't seem to think it will prevent 100% of rapes, it's VERY clear that the product will easily be capable of preventing SOME rapes. By that degree, folks should support it. | ||
|
hp.Shell
United States2527 Posts
However, let's say you meet a girl who is wearing one of these. You click and head home to have sex. She's too drunk to remember / input the combination to the device. Bad night? Different situation this time. You meet a girl who is NOT wearing one of these, but owns one in her wardrobe back at her place. You click and head home to have sex. She consents to coitus. Later, for whatever reason she decides to falsely accuse you of raping her. Does her anti-rape underwear support or hinder her case against you? Could she spend a few days destroying the device before making the accusation and use it as evidence? Let's say she does get raped by somebody because she wasn't wearing the device that particular night. Does it support or hinder her case against the rapist? | ||
|
r.Evo
Germany14080 Posts
Sigh. | ||
|
Nacl(Draq)
United States302 Posts
On November 06 2013 15:58 hp.Shell wrote: It's a good idea and a good concept. It seems to have a positive benefit to society, which I support. However, let's say you meet a girl who is wearing one of these. You click and head home to have sex. She's too drunk to remember / input the combination to the device. Bad night? Different situation this time. You meet a girl who is NOT wearing one of these, but owns one in her wardrobe back at her place. You click and head home to have sex. She consents to coitus. Later, for whatever reason she decides to falsely accuse you of raping her. Does her anti-rape underwear support or hinder her case against you? Could she spend a few days destroying the device before making the accusation and use it as evidence? Let's say she does get raped by somebody because she wasn't wearing the device that particular night. Does it support or hinder her case against the rapist? Some states in the US say having sex with anyone drunk/tipsy is considered raping them. So you're guilty either way in those states. Just you know... don't have sex with anyone cause yea... anyone can lie and when it comes to rape you generally don't get a he said she said argument you get a he lie she truthed. But the device is good. It'll stop some rape. That is what matters. Should everyone be required to wear them? Of course not. | ||
|
NeThZOR
South Africa7387 Posts
On November 06 2013 16:27 r.Evo wrote: This kind of reminds me of the good old "I have a pepper spray in my pocket, why would I not walk through the park at night? I can defend myself!" Sigh. People who go out and deliberately look for trouble while full well knowing that there is a risk of being attacked are very ignorant towards our current state of society. I can't help but blame them for their own stupidity when thinking that way. However, this device does serve the same function as the pepper spray in your argument, but can obviously in some cases used in the same sentence. Women who go the extremes of wearing these devices fear an immediate danger and may be previous victims of rape, thus they don't go out looking for danger but rather try to protect themselves. On the other hand, some of these women may just be wearing these because they plan to go on dates with strangers or the like, and this is where they go looking for trouble whilst thinking they have a safeguard. | ||
|
DarkNetHunter
1224 Posts
| ||
|
Poffel
471 Posts
On November 06 2013 16:58 NeThZOR wrote: People who go out and deliberately look for trouble while full well knowing that there is a risk of being attacked are very ignorant towards our current state of society. I can't help but blame them for their own stupidity when thinking that way. However, this device does serve the same function as the pepper spray in your argument, but can obviously in some cases used in the same sentence. Women who go the extremes of wearing these devices fear an immediate danger and may be previous victims of rape, thus they don't go out looking for danger but rather try to protect themselves. On the other hand, some of these women may just be wearing these because they plan to go on dates with strangers or the like, and this is where they go looking for trouble whilst thinking they have a safeguard. Well, rEvo is on to something insofar as what's for sale here is, once again, the illusion of safety. As with pepper spray... it probably doesn't hurt carrying it, but it's arguably a lousy excuse of a weapon because it only works on faces and is rendered useless by a gust of wind. A big car key provides more self-defense value. Or those 6-week self defense courses that supposedly teach a woman how to physically stand up to a male who's likely to have at least a couple of weight classes on her. Professional martial artists would complain if they had to go into such a match-up. And in the video, they say the lock has "up to 132" positions. That means, provided that an attacker knows that such devices exist, if he simply tries one combination after another, opening these undergarments takes... a minute on average? Two minutes max? Although it might indeed be a marginal improvement of safety, we're realistically talking about a device that's put to shame by a 5$ bike lock. But hey, the important thing is that somebody found a way to make money of it, right? | ||
| ||
