Rape-X Anti-Rape Female-Condom

[xestrox]

You know how some medieval arrows work? They're shaped like: >---|> for a reason. As the arrow gets lodged in the chest, it is almost impossible to remove without causing EVEN MORE pain, because the "hooked" ends catch on to the skin and other stuff. It's really quite nasty.

This device works the same way; the "hooks" snap onto the penis when it's inserted, causing great pain - but the pain is intensified as the rapist tries to remove his penis. When he is able to do so, the device is stuck onto the penis, and as he's trying to get it off (because, as I said before, it's EXCRUCIATING pain), the victim has a chance to escape. Why don't YOU do some research?

Check out the animation on this page: http://www.antirape.co.za/intro.htm

Given that you don't know anything about the subject you're debating, you fail right there. And this is just the debate of whether the manufacturer can produce them -- the woman has the right (as Shredder said) to put whatever the fuck she wants in her vagina.

i do know about the subject being debated, and as i said it will increase harm done to a women seeing as if the man is harmed by such a device during the act of him trying to rape someone, he is extremely likely to kill the women, so please explain to me how this would not increase harm done to a women in the longrun?

 

[Shredderbeam]

i do know about the subject being debated, and as i said it will increase harm done to a women seeing as if the man is harmed by such a device during the act of him trying to rape someone, he is extremely likely to kill the women, so please explain to me how this would not increase harm done to a women in the longrun?

Whether it harms the woman or not is irrelevant. The issue is whether or not you have the right to physically prevent a woman from owning one, or physically prevent somebody from manufacturing them.

 

[Benwise]

I read this, and when I saw the part about the penis being chopped off, I immediately disagreed... Why dont women just get a vaginal ring inserted? Tubes tied? Something like that? And even if they are being raped, they can have an abortion.. Im just against the penis chopper..

 

[Shredderbeam]

I read this, and when I saw the part about the penis being chopped off, I immediately disagreed... Why dont women just get a vaginal ring inserted? Tubes tied? Something like that? And even if they are being raped, they can have an abortion.. Im just against the penis chopper..

Do you claim to have a right to control what others put inside their own bodies?

 

[xestrox]

Whether it harms the woman or not is irrelevant. The issue is whether or not you have the right to physically prevent a woman from owning one, or physically prevent somebody from manufacturing them.

when it comes to the point that it may increase harm done to someone else, than yes i feel it needs limited, just as things such as crack and heroin and illegal.

 

[Shredderbeam]

when it comes to the point that it may increase harm done to someone else, than yes i feel it needs limited, just as things such as crack and heroin and illegal.

Unfortunately, your rights do not overrule the rights of others.

 

[Dominick]

I wouldn't see any trouble in a company manufacturing these but I do see trouble in selling them. I would say the product is for a good cause but one major problem is.... ALCOHOL. At normal parties people drink, they get intoxicated. If I am a guy and I had 10 beers I am not going to be able to know if she has one of these in and the girl wont be alert enough to tell me until I see that the tip of my dick is cut off. Then you have the argument in court if it was the girl or the mans fault, blah blah blah.

 

[ET Phone Home]

People need to focus on the topic; I don't see any problem with it but I can recognize the possible problems of abusing this device. From watching the animation (thanks to whoever posted that), the device latches onto the penis and gets stuck, and despite any pain no real damage is done to the penis, as it locks into the skin and doesn't really "slice" your penis.

I think this plastic device is more practical than the medieval, metal penis slicer 3000 that everyone on this thread is under the impression of it being.

And as for people saying "uhhh, penis cut off, gar gar no likey", you fail to recognize that this woman is being raped... She does not want a penis inside of her vagina. Anyone that says "cant they get their tubs tied or just like get the abortion gawd" , you are stupid.

AT LEAST READ THIS:
Think of your right as a man not to have to take a penis in your ass. You shouldn't have anything put into your ass hole that you don't want; the same concept applies to females. Let's think clearly, people.



oh and btw:

If a manufacturer wishes to release a sexual pleasure enhancer, it's really up to him.

ur sexist lawl

 

[MatthewGor123]

i do know about the subject being debated, and as i said it will increase harm done to a women seeing as if the man is harmed by such a device during the act of him trying to rape someone, he is extremely likely to kill the women, so please explain to me how this would not increase harm done to a women in the longrun?

Again, the device slips out, the man is in a ton of pain, the man worries about getting HIS DICK LOOSE rather than killing a woman. It's an *impulse* not a controlled reaction. Have you ever gotten your dick caught in a zipper? If you have, you'd know how much it hurts. Imagine that, but 10x worst. You think you'll be caring about anything around you? Doubt it. It's an IMPULSE. The woman has time to escape. Read the fucking FAQ, because once again, you obviously haven't. I doubt you even understand how this thing works. I'll explain it to you.

1) The MAN inserts his "pole" into the woman's "hole" -- explaining it in pre-school terms so you can understand
2) The MAN's pole gets caught on this sharpy, hooky thingy.
3) As the MAN removes his pole from her hole, the pointy thingies (hooks) dig deeper into the pole.
4) The man screams in pain, and tries his hardest to get the hooky thingy off his pole.
5) The woman runs away and calls the police.
6) The man still has the hooky thingy on his penis, so he's screwed anyways. Even if she DOES die, it was HER OWN choice for putting it on, and at least the man gets apprehended 100% of the time?

And do you not know how to read? It's the woman's CIVIL LIBERTY to put whatever she wants into her "hole."

 

[Christmas Crackers]

This sounds like a cruel April Fools joke one of my friends would play on me.

Sure, release it, but get ready for a whole shitload of lawsuits.

 

[MatthewGor123]

This sounds like a cruel April Fools joke one of my friends would play on me.

Sure, release it, but get ready for a whole shitload of lawsuits.

It's been out for over 2 years :O - the company itself can't be sued, only the woman. It was her choice for wearing it, her fault for not remembering. It doesn't cause any permanent damage, unless the MAN tries to manually remove it.

 

[xestrox]

Again, the device slips out, the man is in a ton of pain, the man worries about getting HIS DICK LOOSE rather than killing a woman. It's an *impulse* not a controlled reaction. Have you ever gotten your dick caught in a zipper? If you have, you'd know how much it hurts. Imagine that, but 10x worst. You think you'll be caring about anything around you? Doubt it. It's an IMPULSE. The woman has time to escape. Read the fucking FAQ, because once again, you obviously haven't. I doubt you even understand how this thing works. I'll explain it to you.

1) The MAN inserts his "pole" into the woman's "hole" -- explaining it in pre-school terms so you can understand
2) The MAN's pole gets caught on this sharpy, hooky thingy.
3) As the MAN removes his pole from her hole, the pointy thingies (hooks) dig deeper into the pole.
4) The man screams in pain, and tries his hardest to get the hooky thingy off his pole.
5) The woman runs away and calls the police.
6) The man still has the hooky thingy on his penis, so he's screwed anyways. Even if she DOES die, it was HER OWN choice for putting it on, and at least the man gets apprehended 100% of the time?

And do you not know how to read? It's the woman's CIVIL LIBERTY to put whatever she wants into her "hole."

No the man will retalliate with excessed agression and force upon the woman, seing as if its stuck to him wouldn't that make it so he was stuck to her? aswell as rapists have been known to go as far as burning their fingertips into practically nothing to disguise there finger prints, so what makes you think that a rapist wouldn't remove the device himself with pliars? aswell as obviously you are agreing with shredder that any product should be allowed to be released even for raping a child with increased pleasure? that seems imoral and irrational.

You know how some medieval arrows work? They're shaped like: >---|> for a reason. As the arrow gets lodged in the chest, it is almost impossible to remove without causing EVEN MORE pain, because the "hooked" ends catch on to the skin and other stuff. It's really quite nasty.

This device works the same way; the "hooks" snap onto the penis when it's inserted, causing great pain - but the pain is intensified as the rapist tries to remove his penis. When he is able to do so, the device is stuck onto the penis, and as he's trying to get it off (because, as I said before, it's EXCRUCIATING pain), the victim has a chance to escape. Why don't YOU do some research?

Check out the animation on this page: http://www.antirape.co.za/intro.htm

Given that you don't know anything about the subject you're debating, you fail right there. And this is just the debate of whether the manufacturer can produce them -- the woman has the right (as Shredder said) to put whatever the fuck she wants in her vagina.

So your saying their's no permanent damage? just like the similar device of the femdefense it is more like a blade that is purposely designed to cut the penis, since when is a scar not permanent.

I thought it was a sexual pleasure enhancer?

why would that matter? seeing as you stated that any manufacturer should be able to release any device they want to, aswell as do you think we should allow nuclear missles with power of destroying a country to the public? seeing as a manufacturer in your opinion has the right to release anything?

 

[Shredderbeam]

No the man will retalliate with excessed agression and force upon the woman, seing as if its stuck to him wouldn't that make it so he was stuck to her? aswell as rapists have been known to go as far as burning their fingertips into practically nothing to disguise there finger prints, so what makes you think that a rapist wouldn't remove the device himself with pliars? aswell as obviously you are agreing with shredder that any product should be allowed to be released even for raping a child with increased pleasure? that seems imoral and irrational.

The man's reaction is irrelevant. The woman's right to this product is not dependent upon its usefulness.

why would that matter? seeing as you stated that any manufacturer should be able to release any device they want to,

I really don't see how I would have a right to physically stop somebody from creating a device.

So, tell me, what do you think determines rights?

 

[xestrox]

The man's reaction is irrelevant. The woman's right to this product is not dependent upon its usefulness.



I really don't see how I would have a right to physically stop somebody from creating a device.

So, tell me, what do you think determines rights?

i feel it determines we shouldn't have the rights to do certain things when it may indanger another person with results overweighing the positive outcomes. i guess you are against laws aswell seeing as they control our rights, i dont see how anyone can say we should allow nuclear missles to be released for public sale when 1 could blow up a country, but i fel your opinion on that is actually entirely different though you can't say it because it would contradict your arguement, but if infact that is how you feel about any product evn if it indangers the life of everyone and has no benefit, than obviously you have no common sense, and no rational opinions in life.

 

[The Fat Controller]

as i said it can be used in malicious activity going against its sole purpose. so consider that.

A hefty plant pot can be used in malicious activity going against is the sole purpose. Should plant pots be banned? And stones?

But Shredder - how far do the rights of the manufacturer extend? What is your stance on misleading marketing of products? What if the Anti-Rape Female-Condom didn't meet expectations and she wants to return it?

 

[Shredderbeam]

i feel it determines we shouldn't have the rights to do certain things when it may indanger another person with results overweighing the positive outcomes.

Ok, so you believe that we do not have the right to harm others. Reasonable, as harming others is a violation of their rights.

You might feel this way, but rights are i guess you are against laws aswell seeing as they control our rights

A law is a mandate from an authority declaring what may or may not be done. A law might have no impact upon my rights, in which case I don't care about it, or it might violate my rights, in which case I care very much. A law that violates my rights is an attack upon me directly.

i dont see how anyone can say we should allow nuclear missles to be released for public sale when 1 could blow up a country

"People shouldn't be allowed to own nuclear missiles, therefore banning everything potentially harmful is justified".

but i fel your opinion on that is actually entirely different though you can't say it because it would contradict your arguement

Note that while we currently have governments to "safeguard" the nuclear stockpiles of the world, they are by no means completely secure - it's rather difficult to accuse an anarchist society of being unable to do something that governments also cannot do.

If the threat of nuclear proliferation is large enough in an anarchist society, it would not be unfeasible to have "insurance companies" that would secure these weapons, collecting a certain monthly fee.

But Shredder - how far do the rights of the manufacturer extend? What is your stance on misleading marketing of products? What if the Anti-Rape Female-Condom didn't meet expectations and she wants to return it?

If a company commits fraud against the consumer, then that is a form of theft. Although it would be difficult to determine whether it were truly a case of fraud or a case of the consumer being an idiot, I would guess that companies that frequently had these complaint leveled against them might not do quite as well as those with good records.

If she wants to return it, she can take it up with the company itself.

Finally, in a truly anarchistic society (one without intellectual property rights), I would very much doubt that many large corporations would exist.

 

[Zelly]

That has got to be the dumbest thing ever. Sorry, but accidents happen, people in this world make mistakes, and that's not fair at all. People need to learn to control themselves, to be honest.

 

[Shredderbeam]

That has got to be the dumbest thing ever. Sorry, but accidents happen, people in this world make mistakes, and that's not fair at all. People need to learn to control themselves, to be honest.

Does a woman not have the right to defend herself against such an accident/mistake?

 

[penman2k7]

It's a good idea but i think they should change what the effects are.
This way if it is somewhat of a druken mistake and she has forgot the man doesnt lose his penis because of it.
The only thing is what else could they put in so that it would still be effective.

 

[MatthewGor123]

Debating with Xestrox is comprable to debating with a brick wall. Seriously, you don't listen, you don't do research on the subject, and you don't comprehend SHIT.

First of all, no - the man is NOT attached to the woman. The device SLIPS OUT of the vagina, and is ONLY on the penis. It is IMPOSSIBLE to remove the hooks without causing PERMANENT FUNCTIONAL damage to the penis. Pliers...rofl, what the fuck would they do? So, if the man is willing to lose the usage of his penis in exchange for freedom, that's good - at least it's still a rapist off the streets. The FemDefense and Rape-aXe are two VERY different products, and FemDefense has not been approved yet while the Rape-aXe has. Scars do not affect functionality. If a man has scars on his penis from raping a woman, who really gives a fuck? If it was not rape, then they're just scars and the man has nothing to worry about. They do not bring pain, they don't look weird, they're just slight skin discoloration. The scars are said to be very minor if the device is professionally removed.

Now, have you ever been punched in the nuts? Probably not, since you're a girl (given your vouch). If you had been, you would know how much it hurts. IF you get punched WICKED HARD in the nuts, or hit with a ball (I was hit with a baseball in the nuts from about 20 feet away :S), the FIRST THING you focus about is grabbing your privates. There's NOTHING you can do about it, if you get hit hard enough. The penis has a HUGE number of nerve endings, so the pain of getting hit in the dick is worse than almost any other pain imaginable. The man CANNOT POSSIBLY think about anything except for removing, or at least quelling, the pain in his penis. It's impossible. You'd know if you were a guy.



Shredder, I think the debate is whether or not the device is MORAL for the COMPANY to produce. It will always be legal for the woman to insert it, there's nothing we can do about that, but whether or not it is MORAL OR IMMORAL for the company to produce is another debate entirely. What do you feel about that?