Rape-X Anti-Rape Female-Condom

[DropKick Murphys]

yes, it does result from an individual willingly using the device to harm others, that's why im saying that releasing this device is handing a women the oppurtunity to harm an innocent male, that is why i feel this should be restricted from release because the benefits are overruled by the negative uses, seeing as there are a very small amount of positive things about this, because the rapist when harmed by the device is going to excell in violence against the woman.

Releasing a gun can potentially be handing women an opportunity to harm an innocent male. So what? Get over it, honestly.
I could care less about the pro's and con's of the device. Why will you deny somebody the right to sell a product? And don't say something barely intelligible in awful grammar about how it could hurt innocent men like you normally do, thanks. Practically anything can be used to harm innocents.

 

[Shredderbeam]

yes, it does result from an individual willingly using the device to harm others, that's why im saying that releasing this device is handing a women the oppurtunity to harm an innocent male, that is why i feel this should be restricted from release because the benefits are overruled by the negative uses, seeing as there are a very small amount of positive things about this, because the rapist when harmed by the device is going to excell in violence against the woman.

You're looking at this the wrong way. The individual is responsible for their own misdeeds. By forbidding innocents to purchase and use this device, you exert control over them. If you can decide what others can/cannot use, why can't I do the same to you? Why can I not march into your home and decide what you are allowed to have? To spare you the trouble, the answer is that you have a right to your own body, and a right to do as you will without fear of coercion. However, you are trying to violate this right of others, which is unacceptable.

 

[The Riddler_]

The effects of the device are not permenant, it will give you a very sharp pain, but will not make your penis disfuntion or "rip it off".

So if the woman abuses it, she may pay a large some of compensation to the accidental victim of the item.

 

[xestrox]

Releasing a gun can potentially be handing women an opportunity to harm an innocent male. So what? Get over it, honestly.
I could care less about the pro's and con's of the device. Why will you deny somebody the right to sell a product? And don't say something barely intelligible in awful grammar about how it could hurt innocent men like you normally do, thanks. Practically anything can be used to harm innocents.

as you said you dont care about the pros and cons, showing you are not considering both sides of the debate you are sticking with your first impression of the topic, second of all a gun can also in many cases be used for survival, hunting, and protection, UNLIKE THIS DEVICE, because as ive stated several times, it will have little, if any, positive uses, if you would like to see why the positive intentions of this device become useless please read my previous posts.

 

[Shredderbeam]

as you said you dont care about the pros and cons, showing you are not considering both sides of the debate you are sticking with your first impression of the topic, second of all a gun can also in many cases be used for survival, hunting, and protection, UNLIKE THIS DEVICE, because as ive stated several times, it will have little, if any, positive uses, if you would like to see why the positive intentions of this device become useless please read my previous posts.

The uses of the device are irrelevant. Your attempt to prevent people from owning it is a violation of their rights.

 

[xestrox]

The uses of the device are irrelevant. Your attempt to prevent people from owning it is a violation of their rights.

Do you feel any individual should be allowed to possess mustard gas, or other chemical weapons or Bio Weapons? seeing as your stating it's anyones rights,

 

[Shredderbeam]

Do you feel any individual should be allowed to possess mustard gas, or other chemical weapons or Bio Weapons? seeing as your stating it's anyones rights,

Yes, if they're willing to invest their own resources into it.

I've already discussed the threat of nuclear weapons in this post: http://www.sythe.org/showpost.php?p=4056074&postcount=60

Yet, this device is not comparable to any sort of weapon of mass destruction. It cannot be used on a large number of people (or anybody) against their will.

 

[EnlightenMe]

I think it should be released. If people are not happy with this product their is a easy solution, DONT USE IT, I mean cmon people, its up to that person wether they want to use this or not. Also I believe that with this advance we could have even simpilar products in use in the future. Just a suggestion, but I believe this product has no problem with being released

 

[Supa_Ramga]

The uses of the device are irrelevant.

I disagree.

Laws are made to protect us from ourselves. We cannot ignore the potential to abuse a device.

You're arguing that one should not be allowed to limit another's personal freedom. But do not forget, your own personal freedom ends where mine begins.

The device can be seen as a "danger to society." This is a legitimate claim that questions the safety of the device. The safety of the public is FAR more important that one's own desires. This is why we have concealed weapons laws.

We cannot be selfish in determining our own freedoms.

 

[CruZr]

HOLY FUCKING GOD, if you have a paranoid girlfriend (80% of women), then what if they forget it's in them?
Yeah, I wouldn't go NEAR a women that paranoid and psycho that has a device stuffed up her crotch that slices up dick.

 

[Shredderbeam]

I disagree.

Laws are made to protect us from ourselves. We cannot ignore the potential to abuse a device.

You're arguing that one should not be allowed to limit another's personal freedom. But do not forget, your own personal freedom ends where mine begins.

Right, I am not allowed to actively seek you out and violate your rights. Ownership of this device does not do that.

The device can be seen as a "danger to society." This is a legitimate claim that questions the safety of the device. The safety of the public is FAR more important that one's own desires. This is why we have concealed weapons laws.

How do you view this as a danger to society?

 

[Epic God]

tbh i dont think a woman would want to walk around with something up her virg.

 

[sirfartsalot]

She does if he's sticking it inside her without her permission.

Even if she didn't, you would punish the women who did such a thing rather than ban them from owning a device.



I'm sure the man can do a quick check to see if she has one in.

wow this is redicoulse why should women have to be afraid of getting raped they should have these devices

 

[xestrox]

Yes, if they're willing to invest their own resources into it.

I've already discussed the threat of nuclear weapons in this post: http://www.sythe.org/showpost.php?p=4056074&postcount=60

Yet, this device is not comparable to any sort of weapon of mass destruction. It cannot be used on a large number of people (or anybody) against their will.

I feel that is irrational, saying anything should be allowed to be released to public even chemical weapons or nuclear bombs, let alone a device that helps increase pleasure when raping a child (as we discussed before on this thread and you supported anything being released) this reply you had shows no sense.

 

[Supa_Ramga]

How do you view this as a danger to society?

It is a concealed weapon that can severely harm others. Unless the weapon was in plain sight, so everyone was aware of it's existence, it is dangerous. This obviously cannot be done. The weapon can be used maliciously and therefore laws must exist to prevent those malicious uses. It is a danger to society.

 

[The Riddler_]

It is a concealed weapon that can severely harm others. Unless the weapon was in plain sight, so everyone was aware of it's existence, it is dangerous. This obviously cannot be done. The weapon can be used maliciously and therefore laws must exist to prevent those malicious uses. It is a danger to society.

Must I repeat myself? Also, then what is your opinion on a CCP?

-Non permanent damages: The device uses "hooks" that grab onto the penis, but do not go deep enough to affect anything that affects function. It HURTS A LOT, but it doesn't cause any structural or functional damage - just slight discoloration.

-Still prevent rape: It may not prevent rape entirely, but it would at least take some careless rapists off the street - and just give the woman a feeling of safety and security when she's home alone. If you knew, as a potential rapist, that the woman may have something in her vagina that would hurt your penis A LOT and you couldn't remove it yourself, wouldn't you think twice?

-Leaves the women to safety after "Deployment": The man's penis is grabbed by this device, and the immense pain he feels overtakes the "rationality" receptors which would cause him to further hurt the woman. He has to try to quell the pain, and naturally the way one would expect to do this is by removing the device - he will soon realize this is an impossible task, but the victim will be long gone and he will be apprehended because of the device.

-Doesn't hurt the women while it's inside her: The design can be found on the website: www.Rapestop.net. They have quite a good answer to this piece of criticism, basically saying that it's how the device functions that prevents accidental injury from happening. It has been tested.

-Isn't visible (not noticeable from close up): Absolutely not! It fits behind the labia and has no strings or anything protruding [taken from Rapestop.net FAQ]. You can't see behind the labia

-Won't malfunction: Of course, any product has the risk of malfunctioning. However, the harm done by these malfunctions shouldn't be a reason for the women not to be able to purchase them. It's all about risk vs. reward, and according to the products' creators, there is quite little risk with quite a high reward.

I hope these answers helped I mean obviously, there will be some drawbacks at first. Eventually, however, this product might become more and more developed until [ideally, but impractically] it is finally able to stop rape entirely, while not harming innocent people.

And yes, I totally agree that people need to read the thread before posting

 

[xestrox]

Must I repeat myself? Also, then what is your opinion on a CCP?

Before you post quoting matthews post, you should read around about this product for yourself, or try reading about FemDefence, the version that practically rips the penis up and does cause permanent damage.

 

[Supa_Ramga]

Must I repeat myself? Also, then what is your opinion on a CCP?

-Non permanent damages: The device uses "hooks" that grab onto the penis, but do not go deep enough to affect anything that affects function. It HURTS A LOT, but it doesn't cause any structural or functional damage - just slight discoloration.

-Still prevent rape: It may not prevent rape entirely, but it would at least take some careless rapists off the street - and just give the woman a feeling of safety and security when she's home alone. If you knew, as a potential rapist, that the woman may have something in her vagina that would hurt your penis A LOT and you couldn't remove it yourself, wouldn't you think twice?

-Leaves the women to safety after "Deployment": The man's penis is grabbed by this device, and the immense pain he feels overtakes the "rationality" receptors which would cause him to further hurt the woman. He has to try to quell the pain, and naturally the way one would expect to do this is by removing the device - he will soon realize this is an impossible task, but the victim will be long gone and he will be apprehended because of the device.

-Doesn't hurt the women while it's inside her: The design can be found on the website: www.Rapestop.net. They have quite a good answer to this piece of criticism, basically saying that it's how the device functions that prevents accidental injury from happening. It has been tested.

-Isn't visible (not noticeable from close up): Absolutely not! It fits behind the labia and has no strings or anything protruding [taken from Rapestop.net FAQ]. You can't see behind the labia

-Won't malfunction: Of course, any product has the risk of malfunctioning. However, the harm done by these malfunctions shouldn't be a reason for the women not to be able to purchase them. It's all about risk vs. reward, and according to the products' creators, there is quite little risk with quite a high reward.

I hope these answers helped I mean obviously, there will be some drawbacks at first. Eventually, however, this product might become more and more developed until [ideally, but impractically] it is finally able to stop rape entirely, while not harming innocent people.

And yes, I totally agree that people need to read the thread before posting

You fail to notice my point... It still CAUSES damage. And as you say, a great deal of it for that matter. It is not in plain view, it is a CONCEALED WEAPON. It can be abused and used maliciously. It is a danger to society and should be treated as such with our concealed weapon laws.

I too dislike it when people don't read my posts before posting...

 

[The Riddler_]

You fail to notice my point... It still CAUSES damage. And as you say, a great deal of it for that matter. It is not in plain view, it is a CONCEALED WEAPON. It can be abused and used maliciously. It is a danger to society and should be treated as such with our concealed weapon laws.

I too dislike it when people don't read my posts before posting...

Umm, I did read your post. And basically anyone can use it for malicious reasons, but even if they do, you can sue them. And I doubt they would like that.

Also, i mean its probably the same pain as getting kicked in the nutz very hard.

Before you post quoting matthews post, you should read around about this product for yourself, or try reading about FemDefence, the version that practically rips the penis up and does cause permanent damage.

FemDefence and Rape-X are 2 different products. And I did read it for my self, I posted days earlier before you guys did between pages 6-8. I just repost his posts so people can read about the product and not go on their horrible resources (their brains) to make their opinions.

 

[xestrox]

Umm, I did read your post. And basically anyone can use it for malicious reasons, but even if they do, you can sue them. And I doubt they would like that.

Also, i mean its probably the same pain as getting kicked in the nutz very hard.

FemDefence and Rape-X are 2 different products. And I did read it for my self, I posted days earlier before you guys did between pages 6-8. I just repost his posts so people can read about the product and not go on their horrible resources (their brains) to make their opinions.

i feel as you said you doubt they would like being sued is irrelevent, seeing as people dont really consider the chance of being sued into there actions before they make an impulsive decision, also if you read all of the previous posts of matthew, he states how it does cause damage, sure it may be healable damage that can be treated and fixed, but a scar will not be fixed, that would be embarrassing to have a girl go to preform oral sex on you and see you have 7+ scars of holes where the hooks had punctured you.