Rape-X Anti-Rape Female-Condom

[antchak]

Personally I do not think this is a very good idea. A woman has the right to insert whatever should would like into her own genitalia, but not at the cost of a possibly innocent man losing his genitals. This device could be used for malicious ends quite easily.

Penman2k7 was also correct when he said an accident could occur far too easily, if a women is drunk and goes to bed with a man. Both are possibly innocent, and the man comes out with hooks or a painful cut in his genitals.

This device is good in concept, but like many questions that have no answer, a temporary solution is not a fix. Even if this became common, rapists would begin to check for this device, rendering it void.

Plus knowing that my girlfriend might be using this and she forgot to take it out might end up with me losing permanent use of my member and screaming in extreme pain.

So, final verdict: No, I do not think it is a good idea. Sure, from a unbiased standpoint, it would cause many problems to innocent men, as well as causing many problems to rapists. However, that is, on a larger scale, saying you can sentence a "suspected" man, without proof, to death, just because he is suspected. If one innocent person suffers, it is immediately, in my mind and in the mind of any in-consequentialist, unfair and immoral. Perhaps all women should move to the corrupt United States, and carry pistols in their purses?

 

[MatthewGor123]

How about the fact that thousands of innocent people suffer from the LACK of an anti-rape device every year? Again, as I've said - the damage is not permanent if proper care is given. The device gives the person who was "hooked" instructions to go to a doctor and get it surgically removed, I believe. Yes, it is extreme pain. Maybe you shouldn't be having drunken sex with her anyways? But should we sacrifice the lack of extreme, but temporary, pain of one man for the equally extreme, but PERMANENT [in many, many cases], pain of one woman (assuming the ratio would be 1 innocent man harmed per 1 rapist caught, which I doubt would even be the case -- I think the efficiency would be better)? I think so.

 

[xestrox]

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



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



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.



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.

first of all, your first statement in the quote above, sure somethings should be legal that may harm things or people, such as even cigarettes may harm yourself but i feel they should stay legal.

second of all, what you are stating is that if you disagree with a law that you will not follow it, meaning you are irrational and immoral.

third of all as you mentioned quoting my comment about how you think anything should be allowed to me manufactured by a distributor, but than when i post about the nuclear missles you mention the government has safeguards to control that, but the point im making is that we should have restrictions such as not releasing a product like this, just as the nuclear missles are not aloud to be distributed to the average american, but obviously you feel anyone should be aloud to own anything, no matter if it even endangers the world.

 

[antchak]

How about the fact that thousands of innocent people suffer from the LACK of an anti-rape device every year? Again, as I've said - the damage is not permanent if proper care is given. The device gives the person who was "hooked" instructions to go to a doctor and get it surgically removed, I believe. Yes, it is extreme pain. Maybe you shouldn't be having drunken sex with her anyways? But should we sacrifice the lack of extreme, but temporary, pain of one man for the equally extreme, but PERMANENT [in many, many cases], pain of one woman (assuming the ratio would be 1 innocent man harmed per 1 rapist caught, which I doubt would even be the case -- I think the efficiency would be better)? I think so.

I completely agree with the fact people shouldn't be having drunken sex, I was just posting an example of how two people (however irresponsible), could suffer from this. Personally, even if the ratio is 1 Million Rapists stopped to 1 innocent man harmed, it is still unfair. Especially because I would be pissed as hell if I was the one innocent man. Besides, I don't see men going around with penis tazers or something.

The actual ratio is 1/4 women will be raped in the world. The ratio is much less in North America and Europe, where this would be implemented. 1/10 Men will be raped, an equally astounding number, but again this is a much smaller ratio in North America.

Again, as I stated, if "The Vagina Knife" became a common thing, it could be easily circumvented [by rapists] by simply checking for it. So for a while it will stop people, but after the media rampages and this becomes well known, you can bet its going to be redundant.

Also (I'm not 100% sure, this is theoretical), I'm guessing most women would not go around every day of their lives with a spring loaded scalpel stuffed you know where, in the offhand chance they might get raped. A small percentage of women will even choose to use this.

Again, looking at this from an unbiased standpoint, this is still immoral and wrong. Raping someone is obviously an unforgivable crime, but taking matters into your own hands is not right. I do agree with women keeping pepper spray or something similar in their purse. For fear of being repetitive, I will not say this again after this, but if one innocent person is injured by this, it is instantly immoral and wrong in my mind. It is easy to say, yes you will be in extreme pain and with minor scarring, but I would feel a lot worse with hooks piercing my genitals. I also think it would be nearly impossible to move without being paralyzed with pain, let alone get up, drive to the doctor, and get it removed. There would be a serious chance of permanent damage.

Final point, like I said above, the only way to solve a question with no answer is to answer the question with the question. The only way to get rid of rape is if everyone stopped raping. Is this possible? Unlikely. This fix would be temporary, and it could [would] injure a great many innocents in the process. I would love this device to work if it had no chance of hurting anyone but the rapist, but as that is not possible I'm afraid I'm against it.

EDIT: I also agree with MatthewGor123 in the statement that arguing with xestrox is like arguing with a brick wall, his arguments are poorly formulated. To Shredderbeam, most of what you are saying makes perfect sense, but only in a conventional environment. If every women had perfect intents, and no mistakes were possible, you would be 100% correct. Unfortunately, most of the world is unconventional and erratic, and this would not really benefit society, rape rates would not decrease, and the rapist with the hurt/cut penis would unleash his fury on the woman.

 

[xestrox]

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?

"It is IMPOSSIBLE to remove the hooks without causing PERMANENT FUNCTIONAL damage" is what you said, but that means it can cause permanent damage, take into consideration the men that would accidently get harmed by this device and are unable to afford medical attention/treatment? explain that for me.

 

[Shredderbeam]

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?

Is it moral for a company to produce a self-defense product? Sure.

Personally I do not think this is a very good idea. A woman has the right to insert whatever should would like into her own genitalia, but not at the cost of a possibly innocent man losing his genitals. This device could be used for malicious ends quite easily.

The woman's right to insert objects into her vagina does not correlate to a right to remove the man's penis. If the woman maliciously does this, then the woman is at fault. Blame her if you like, but don't freak out and ban the entire product.

Penman2k7 was also correct when he said an accident could occur far too easily, if a women is drunk and goes to bed with a man. Both are possibly innocent, and the man comes out with hooks or a painful cut in his genitals.

That would be unfortunate. What is more unfortunate is that you are attempting to justify violating a woman's rights for an accident that might occur.

This device is good in concept, but like many questions that have no answer, a temporary solution is not a fix. Even if this became common, rapists would begin to check for this device, rendering it void.

Irrelevant. The woman's right to her own body does not depend upon the success rate of this trap.

Plus knowing that my girlfriend might be using this and she forgot to take it out might end up with me losing permanent use of my member and screaming in extreme pain.

So, your solution is to physically stop her from possessing a mechanical object?

So, final verdict: No, I do not think it is a good idea. Sure, from a unbiased standpoint, it would cause many problems to innocent men, as well as causing many problems to rapists. However, that is, on a larger scale, saying you can sentence a "suspected" man, without proof, to death, just because he is suspected. If one innocent person suffers, it is immediately, in my mind and in the mind of any in-consequentialist, unfair and immoral. Perhaps all women should move to the corrupt United States, and carry pistols in their purses?

This has nothing to do with sentencing anybody. It's a spring operated blade - a bloody mousetrap that woman stuff up their vagina. Would you ban mousetraps too?

Sure, there would probably be unfortunate consequences, but do you have the right to physically strip people of their rights so that accidents don't occur?

Since the suffering of one innocent person is automatically immoral, would you also support banning guns? Knives? Pointy keys?

 

[antchak]

Oh man I love a good debate, it just makes you want to beat up everyone that disagrees with you, however relaxed you think you might be .

 

[MatthewGor123]

"It is IMPOSSIBLE to remove the hooks without causing PERMANENT FUNCTIONAL damage" is what you said, but that means it can cause permanent damage, take into consideration the men that would accidently get harmed by this device and are unable to afford medical attention/treatment? explain that for me

A plant pot can also cause permanent damage, if you choose to bash your head against it repeatedly. I think I might have permanent brain damage if I keep going /facepalm while reading your posts.

It is the woman's responsibility to warn the man (if it is consentual) that she has this contraceptive/potentially harmful device. If she fails to do so, she can get sued. I'm sure that the person could find a free clinic somewhere, that would recognize the severity of the problem and refer him to a more professional clinic. Anyways, health insurance is mandatory in the US in a few months anyways.


--Shredder, all I'm saying is you keep using the whole "take away the woman's rights" arguments - that does not pertain to whether or not it is MORAL for production, which is basically what I think Xestrox/Antchak/I are debating. It doesn't take much sense to realize that it will not be made ILLEGAL to wear these things if they exist, we're just debating if it's moral.

--Ant, you might be pissed - but nothing permanent would happen to you. Think of the permanent emotional trauma a rape victim may undergo. If you could protect her, and sacrifice your right to pain under ACCIDENTAL circumstances, wouldn't you?

--Men don't have tasers on their penis because what would they use it for? It's EXTRAORDINARILY rare for a woman to be like "fuck me or I'm gonna shoot you!" However, if a device like this could be legally manufactured, I don't see what right we have of preventing guys from wearing them, however stupid it may be.

[Shredder, do me a favor and add my MSN?]

 

[antchak]

Is it moral for a company to produce a self-defense product? Sure.

The woman's right to insert objects into her vagina does not correlate to a right to remove the man's penis. If the woman maliciously does this, then the woman is at fault. Blame her if you like, but don't freak out and ban the entire product.

That would be unfortunate. What is more unfortunate is that you are attempting to justify violating a woman's rights for an accident that might occur.

Irrelevant. The woman's right to her own body does not depend upon the success rate of this trap.

So, your solution is to physically stop her from possessing a mechanical object?

This has nothing to do with sentencing anybody. It's a spring operated blade - a bloody mousetrap that woman stuff up their vagina. Would you ban mousetraps too?

Sure, there would probably be unfortunate consequences, but do you have the right to physically strip people of their rights so that accidents don't occur?

Since the suffering of one innocent person is automatically immoral, would you also support banning guns? Knives? Pointy keys?

- Of course it is moral, its the use that deems it moral or immoral. What a silly question.

- The loss of a man's genitals due to anti-rape device is in direct correlation with the use of the product. It is also relevant to the woman's use of the product. Actually the law states that something potentially harmful, when not used in self-defense, is illegal. If something like this were to occur, both the woman and the product are at fault, this has happened countless times. Company's can stand trial and they have for completely similar products. A loophole you would have found if you did your reading.

- Yes it would be unfortunate. And yes it would be the woman's fault, but the product could potentially face lawsuits if it does not disassociate itself from these accidents, which it cannot without federal consent, which is incredibly rare for a product such as this.

- This has nothing to do with a woman's right to her own body, or, for that matter, the success rate of the trap. I merely implied the bulk use of this device would eventually render itself useless.

- No, I never once said I would "physically stop her". I have no qualms with woman's rights; in fact some of my best friends [that are female] are social activists. Fortunately, none of there rights are being called into question. I would stop the product, not the women from buying the product.

- A mousetrap could not directly harm someone when both partners engaged in sexual intercourse. Mousetraps also do not utilize blades or hooks that cause permanent damage to the male genitals, thereby rendering your analogy impractical.

I see no need to strip anybody of their rights to prevent this. By removing the product, no rights are stripped or violated, and it removes all risk for both partners. This has nothing to do with a woman's right to her body, as you seem to carry on some absurd belief that I would stop a woman from using this. No, I said I was against the sale of it. Very different.

P.S: Don't take any offense from this Shredder, I actually find this quite entertaining. I could probably argue your side just as well, and I'm willing to be you could argue mine in the same manner. Its quite fun to exchange verbal jousts with someone else seemingly equal in intelligence.

 

[antchak]

--Ant, you might be pissed - but nothing permanent would happen to you. Think of the permanent emotional trauma a rape victim may undergo. If you could protect her, and sacrifice your right to pain under ACCIDENTAL circumstances, wouldn't you?

Oh I know the trauma...one of my [very close] cousins was raped...

It didn't happen to me but I wanted to kill the anonymous guy who did it...I wanted to rip him limb from limb. I think being raped is nearly as bad as being killed, but I truly do no believe this device would prevent rape. Like I stated above, he kidnaps her, tries to do her, but the device hurts him. Then...he lets her go while he drives to the doctor????? I think not. He would probably flay her to an inch of her life and might even kill her. Just another reason why this might not be a good idea. I can see it being good if the woman was being raped in the middle of a parking lot, where she could get away when he's down, but that would never happen. Generally the woman is drugged, unconscious, or beaten into submission.

 

[Shredderbeam]

--Shredder, all I'm saying is you keep using the whole "take away the woman's rights" arguments - that does not pertain to whether or not it is MORAL for production, which is basically what I think Xestrox/Antchak/I are debating. It doesn't take much sense to realize that it will not be made ILLEGAL to wear these things if they exist, we're just debating if it's moral.

What standard of morality are you using to evaluate whether or not it's moral?

[Shredder, do me a favor and add my MSN?

It'll have to be when I get home from classes tomorrow, but ok.

- The loss of a man's genitals due to anti-rape device is in direct correlation with the use of the product. It is also relevant to the woman's use of the product.

I did not state that it wasn't.

Actually the law states that something potentially harmful, when not used in self-defense, is illegal. If something like this were to occur, both the woman and the product are at fault, this has happened countless times. Company's can stand trial and they have for completely similar products. A loophole you would have found if you did your reading.

The law does not define morality. I'm going by pure logic here.

- Yes it would be unfortunate. And yes it would be the woman's fault, but the product could potentially face lawsuits if it does not disassociate itself from these accidents, which it cannot without federal consent, which is incredibly rare for a product such as this.

The company could be sued, but it shouldn't. It is not morally responsible for the actions that the woman uses it for.

I would stop the product, not the women from buying the product.

That is still a violation of the individual's rights. Controlling what they may or may not create with their bodies is a violation of the self-ownership principle.

- A mousetrap could not directly harm someone when both partners engaged in sexual intercourse. Mousetraps also do not utilize blades or hooks that cause permanent damage to the male genitals, thereby rendering your analogy impractical.

The guiding principle behind this device and a mousetrap is the same thing - a spring propelled object is thrust forward, be it a thin metal bar or a blade.

I see no need to strip anybody of their rights to prevent this. By removing the product, no rights are stripped or violated, and it removes all risk for both partners. This has nothing to do with a woman's right to her body, as you seem to carry on some absurd belief that I would stop a woman from using this. No, I said I was against the sale of it. Very different.

By removing the product, you take it from those who own it. This is stealing.

P.S: Don't take any offense from this Shredder, I actually find this quite entertaining. I could probably argue your side just as well, and I'm willing to be you could argue mine in the same manner. Its quite fun to exchange verbal jousts with someone else seemingly equal in intelligence.

Ok.

 

[MatthewGor123]

Oh I know the trauma...one of my [very close] cousins was raped...

It didn't happen to me but I wanted to kill the anonymous guy who did it...I wanted to rip him limb from limb. I think being raped is nearly as bad as being killed, but I truly do no believe this device would prevent rape. Like I stated above, he kidnaps her, tries to do her, but the device hurts him. Then...he lets her go while he drives to the doctor????? I think not. He would probably flay her to an inch of her life and might even kill her. Just another reason why this might not be a good idea. I can see it being good if the woman was being raped in the middle of a parking lot, where she could get away when he's down, but that would never happen. Generally the woman is drugged, unconscious, or beaten into submission.

I don't have any statistics, but I remember reading somewhere that the majority of rape is NOT kidnap rape, but rather rape by somenoe who knows precisely when, where, and how to strike. The majority of rape is NOT done by strangers, and even when it is - they are generally done in break-ins, I believe. No kidnapping is involved - remember, rape is about CONTROL not about the SEX. The man needs to feel a sense of dominance; he usually forces the woman, perfectly conscious and sober(apart from most date rapes), to perform whatever the hell he wants her to. When he sticks his penis in and takes it out, the hooks grab on. He now has this thingy on his dick, that hurts A LOT. I think ALL men would rather try to subdue the pain they have of an erect dick getting HOOKED, and would initially try to remove it prior to doing anything else. It's an instinctual reaction to protect your junk, so to speak. As the man grabs his penis, the woman has a chance to run away. And trust me, I don't think this man is going to be able to run anywhere after her, since his dick is in sooo much pain lol.

Correct me if I'm wrong with some statistics, because I very well may be.

 

[antchak]

Basically, the four arguments are thus:

1. Morality is a factor, this device is immoral and
2. I do not agree or disagree strongly
3. I strongly agree
4. I strongly disagree

I side with argument 2, whatever you may think. I do not agree with the devices proposed side effects, and I do not think it will seriously benefit the community, but I can think of strong arguments on both sides.

And shredder, I do not want to remove it. I said, just for the purpose of this thread, that I was against its release, which was the question. You seem to continuously misread my replies by tying it to an unrelated topic. I would not remove it from circulation, and yes, you are correct, it would be stealing to remove it. Therefore it is lucky I did not say I would go around collecting these devices and shut the company, if I could, I said that I was opposed to the initial release.

Also, I could say a gun's thin metal back thing (not sure what its called, I'm not American, j.k ) moves in the same way as a mouse trap. I could say this about quite a few things, such as "boats float" and "inflatable ducks float". This does not make an analogy between them any stronger, which you seem to believe. I'm sorry to say, you are sadly mistaken.

Alright, I'm off to bed gettin late here. Shredder, add my msn too, [email protected], I'd be more than happy to chat with you when we're on the same side. Matthew, I believe I already have you.

This has been fun, thanks for the replies, and hopefully the Rape AXE makes the world a better place. Peace mates.

 

[antchak]

Oh before I leave I wanted to say, yea your right Matt. Majority of rape is committed by people that they know, and is not a kidnap but it is usually a planned "hold". Its often in the victims own home, or the rapists home (if the girl/guy knows the rapist), but the majority of the time they are incapacitated. The rapist will have no need to run after her/him when she is drugged, unconscious, or tied up. Now I really have to leave, see ya

 

[xestrox]

i noticed matthewgor didn't answer my most previously statement, and i guess he wotn unless its a flame or an ignorant excuse why not to debate with me.

 

[MatthewGor123]

Ant, fair enough - but are you sure that the majority of rape involves a physically incapacitated woman? It'd make sense, but some clarification wouldn't hurt. Anyways, shouldn't it be the woman's choice if she wants to take that risk? For example, why not put it on whenever you're going to be in your house alone or something like that? If the woman ends up getting killed, then it was based on her decision to wear the product, not the company's for producing the product...

But you bring up a good point, and actually argued it well unlike Xestrox who used his massive run-on sentence that had no substance and that I couldn't understand, because of all of the commas and the, improper usage of them and that he did not back up with any evidence, which could easily be found if it were true, to support his claims. It was nice to hear it from someone who actually understands sentence structure.


And Xestrox,
http://www.sythe.org/showpost.php?p=4057820&postcount=72
Good job reading the thread, though.

Given your grammar, do I really need an "ignorant reason" not to debate with you? "Most previously statement" -- almost ALL of your phrases are no better than this.

 

[wtp]

This explains it well:
http://www.antirape.co.za/intro.htm

Sounds good and should be legal. People have the right to protect themselves. On the other hand if it really is not rape, it is consensual then the male should has the right to sue and the female charged for assault.

 

[xestrox]

This explains it well:
http://www.antirape.co.za/intro.htm

Sounds good and should be legal. People have the right to protect themselves. On the other hand if it really is not rape, it is consensual then the male should has the right to sue and the female charged for assault.

first of all, there are similar devices withoutthe same name, such as femdefence which is actually more brutal, aswell as how does it protect the women, seeing as the man will excell in agression if he gets his penis damaged from putting it into the girl. aswell as we can sue for anything even murder does that mean we should support something that may harm someone, just because on the bright side we can always sue?

 

[xestrox]

How about the fact that thousands of innocent people suffer from the LACK of an anti-rape device every year? Again, as I've said - the damage is not permanent if proper care is given. The device gives the person who was "hooked" instructions to go to a doctor and get it surgically removed, I believe. Yes, it is extreme pain. Maybe you shouldn't be having drunken sex with her anyways? But should we sacrifice the lack of extreme, but temporary, pain of one man for the equally extreme, but PERMANENT [in many, many cases], pain of one woman (assuming the ratio would be 1 innocent man harmed per 1 rapist caught, which I doubt would even be the case -- I think the efficiency would be better)? I think so.

who are you to decide if someone should be having drunken sex? seeing as you stated a women should be allowed to stick anything in her that she wants, thats an example of free-will and having free choice, seems like you are having a double standard, aswell as ive mentioned before, you have not answered my other questions. unless you are afraid to due to the fact that it proves you have no arguement, i'd prefer to hear your answer.

 

[antchak]

And Xestrox,
http://www.sythe.org/showpost.php?p=4057820&postcount=72
Good job reading the thread, though.

Given your grammar, do I really need an "ignorant reason" not to debate with you? "Most previously statement" -- almost ALL of your phrases are no better than this.

Yea xestrox is an idiot I'll give you that, an ignorant excuse doesn't make sense, and neither does anything else he says. I think he's just trying to debate on the same intelligence level as you, Shredderbeam, and I, but its clearly failing.