Anti-Rape Condom?

[Mad4stevie]

South Africa anti-rape condom aims to stop attacks


KLEINMOND, South Africa (Reuters) - A South African inventor unveiled a new anti-rape female condom on Wednesday that hooks onto an attacker's penis and aims to cut one of the highest rates of sexual assault in the world.

"Nothing has ever been done to help a woman so that she does not get raped and I thought it was high time," Sonette Ehlers, 57, said of the "rapex", a device worn like a tampon that has sparked controversy in a country used to daily reports of violent crime.

Police statistics show more than 50,000 rapes are reported every year, while experts say the real figure could be four times that as they say most rapes of acquaintances or children are never reported.

Ehlers said the "rapex" hooks onto the rapist's skin, allowing the victim time to escape and helping to identify perpetrators.

"He will obviously be too pre-occupied at this stage," she told reporters in Kleinmond, a small holiday village about 100km (60 miles) east of Cape Town. "I promise you he is going to be too sore. He will go straight to hospital."

The device, made of latex and held firm by shafts of sharp barbs, can only be removed from the man through surgery which will alert hospital staff, and ultimately, the police, she said.

It also reduces the chances of a woman falling pregnant or contracting AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases from the attacker by acting in the same way as a female condom.

South Africa has more people with HIV/AIDS than any other country, with one in nine of its 45 million population infected.

Ehlers, who showed off a prototype on Wednesday, said women had tried it for comfort and it had been tested on a plastic male model but not yet on a live man. Production was planned to start next year.

But the "rapex" has raised fears amongst anti-rape activists that it could escalate violence against women.

"If a victim is wearing such a device it may enrage the attacker further and possibly result in more harm being caused," said Sam Waterhouse, advocacy co-ordinator for Rape Crisis.

Other critics say the condom is mediaeval and barbaric -- an accusation Ehlers says should be directed rather at the act of rape.

"This is not about vengeance ... but the deed, that is what I hate," she said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050831/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_safrica_rape;_ylt=AvIT0KWq.F5I6vAhbB3XZY0DW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl


Interesting concept - I would have never conceived of such a thing as this! I cannot imagine that a "live" man will want to be the guineau pig for this testing! :laugh:

[GODDESS6]

this toooo funny, smart tho, but too funny :lol: ~

[johndoe]

I swear they better pay the guy who tests that something in the millions...

Its a good idea, though...

[estranged4life]

South Africa anti-rape condom aims to stop attacks

The device, made of latex and held firm by shafts of sharp barbs, can only be removed from the man through surgery which will alert hospital staff, and ultimately, the police, she said.

Ehlers, who showed off a prototype on Wednesday, said women had tried it for comfort and it had been tested on a plastic male model but not yet on a live man. Production was planned to start next year.


lack of volunteers??? They (The rapists) act man enough to violate a woman let em be man enough to quality check it cause it sure sounds like that would leave 'em with a lasting memory (And alotta pain.)

[GateandGarden]

Good idea but...the whole time I was reading it I felt like I was reading something out of The Onion! :laugh:

[amber]

what's going on down there is enough to make you lose hope in the human race. I've seen several shows on it, it's....indescribably disgusting. a huge proportion of girl children, and some babies too, get raped. I don't know if this will help, but god I hope it does. I think that lady is somewhat right, that it could incite rage in the perp - they better make it so painful that he won't be able to think about anything else.

[michelle2677]

[B]Other critics say the condom is mediaeval and barbaric -- an accusation Ehlers says should be directed rather at the act of rape.

"This is not about vengeance ... but the deed, that is what I hate," she said.




barbaric?? who gives a *****?? if someone rapes me, I'm all about vengeance....I guess it's better than having mr happy CUT off...which would be the alternative for me... :shrug:

[diamondsnake]

So, is a woman expected to wear this all day, every day for her entire life? I mean, how can she plan for an attack?

[michelle2677]

So, is a woman expected to wear this all day, every day for her entire life? I mean, how can she plan for an attack?
yeah..I was kinda wondering that too...."oh mr big ugly guy...could you hold just a sec while I slip this condom in that is gonna rip you're weewee apart...this will only take...wait....just....a sec...o.k..." :laugh:

[diamondsnake]

yeah..I was kinda wondering that too...."oh mr big ugly guy...could you hold just a sec while I slip this condom in that is gonna rip you're weewee apart...this will only take...wait....just....a sec...o.k..." :laugh:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: My thoughts exactly...

[gldstwmn]

So, is a woman expected to wear this all day, every day for her entire life? I mean, how can she plan for an attack?

That's what I'm wondering.

[strandinthewind]

It likely will never pass Constitutional muster for two reasons:

1. it is inflicting a punishment prior to conviction of a crime

2. bad women can use it to punish someone not actually raping them, e.g. a cheating husband.

[ReFleetwoodMac]

2. bad women can use it to punish someone not actually raping them, e.g. a cheating husband.
Or a stubborn jar of olives.

[strandinthewind]

Or a stubborn jar of olives.

:shocked: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I love you for that :cool:

[GateandGarden]

Or a stubborn jar of olives.:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Please don't ever stop posting here. :)

[strandinthewind]

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Please don't ever stop posting here. :)


I am soooooo envisioning a Gary Larson comic on that :eek:

[amber]

I assume it is intended just for women and that they don't expect the girls to walk around with someone inserted in them.
The younger girls are the ones getting raped in huge numbers, because supposedly, people there think you can cure aids by sleeping with a virgin. I hope the young girls will wear them. I'm sure there won't be problems with wearing them for hours at a time. :shrug:

I'm astonished at the amount of laughing and joking in this thread.

[sparky]

The younger girls are the ones getting raped in huge numbers, because supposedly, people there think you can cure aids by sleeping with a virgin. I hope the young girls will wear them. I'm sure there won't be problems with wearing them for hours at a time. :shrug:

I'm astonished at the amount of laughing and joking in this thread.

I am neither laughing nor joking when I say that if this thing gets on the market, some nutbag will fetishize it.

[amber]

I am neither laughing nor joking when I say that if this thing gets on the market, some nutbag will fetishize it.
I'm sure you're right. That really isn't the part of the whole point of this that I'm concentrating on, though. If you see what I mean. To me this is an extreme serious problem, a horrible epidemic.
But, yeah, I'm sure someone will.

[amber]

As opposed to the other Ledge threads about strange new products that are treated with grace and elegance. Forgive us for perceiving this stately message board as anything less.
It's the point of what the products are for. You can joke, obviously, I was just expressing my opinion. But I can't find any levity in the whole situation knowing what I know about it. That's just me, I guess. I usually go for the cheap joke, but I, personally, find it repugnant in this context. In fact, I can't separate the product from it's context here. Especially since it only has one purpose, for one huge problem, and was developed for that problem specifically.

The younger girls are expected to wear them? Little girls are meant to walk around with some object penetrating them? I'm confused.

Why not? I'm thinking it won't be that difficult. I mean, 11 year olds wear tampons. :shrug: I haven't seen the design of the thing, of course, but they've tested it, so it must be somewhat "do-able". I'm not sure about babies or very, very young children. I would think anyone 6-7 or above could wear it. But again, I haven't seen the design. :shrug:

[amber]

Why not, for a 6 year old? It seems rather traumatising in itself (obviously not as much as what it's attempting to prevent). I feel like I'm missing something here. Little girls are small, they don't er lubricate themselves nor respond to foreign objects in a relaxed state of mind, walking around with some object in them would be rather painful! On a side note, 11 year olds have visits from auntie flow? It seems with every discussion the age gets younger
Dunno. I'm not sure it would be painful, because I haven't seen that. And usually the area can stretch to accomodate. I don't know, honestly. Maybe I'll see if there's any more info on it. :) Oh, and yes, 11 year olds do. I was 11 :shrug: sometimes nine year olds. It's thought to be younger now because of all the hormones we pump into beef. (which we then eat). Not sure about chicken or pigs, if they get hormone shots. Ah, the circle of life, so pure and good, it warms my heart.

[GODDESS6]

The younger girls are the ones getting raped in huge numbers, because supposedly, people there think you can cure aids by sleeping with a virgin. I hope the young girls will wear them. I'm sure there won't be problems with wearing them for hours at a time. :shrug:

I'm astonished at the amount of laughing and joking in this thread.
i'm not laughing, i 2 watched a docu about this & it was so alarming how much of this happens~ it is outa control~ it breaks your heart because it has become an epidemic just as aids has become there~ it's astonishing~

the laughing i was doing was about the device, i mean get a man where it really hurts, VERY deservingly so, that's what i call "getting down to brass tacks"~

[irishgrl]

It likely will never pass Constitutional muster for two reasons:

1. it is inflicting a punishment prior to conviction of a crime

2. bad women can use it to punish someone not actually raping them, e.g. a cheating husband.

actually your first point is inaccurate: the punishment is only inflicted at the MOMENT of the crime. INSTANT justice if you ask me.

as for cheating husbands, dont they deserve it?

[irishgrl]

Actually, the moment of the crime would be commitment of the crime. We're talking conviction here, which most likely would be a few days before happening.

EDIT: ok, I misread. I thought he meant commission not conviction

but I find it odd that the article mentions that 50,000 reports are made each year and 4 times that many are believed to occur, but no numbers on convictions? Who the hell gets convicted? I submit that the situation is out of control precisely because there are relatively few convictions.
Thus, the device identifies a crime in progress and should overwhelmingly be approved by the Government in my opinion.

[irishgrl]

Not prior to the act, prior to conviction. "1. it is inflicting a punishment prior to conviction of a crime." Even though it will be rather obvious the person is guilty, people for some reason are still innocent until proven guilty.

I edited my other post, as you were posting yours. Does Africa use the "innocent until proven guilty" ethic that America (supposedly) uses? :shrug:

at any rate, the device is meant to be a deterrent and if no rapes occur, there is no punishment prior to conviction OR commission. simple.

[paleshadow]

It likely will never pass Constitutional muster for two reasons:

1. it is inflicting a punishment prior to conviction of a crime

2. bad women can use it to punish someone not actually raping them, e.g. a cheating husband.


I thought #2 could be an issue as well. I was also thinking that while rape is an awful act of violence, could this rape condom cause further violence? I mean, would the assailant lash out and kill the woman he was going to rape?
Will rapists merely begin sodomizing their victims instead?
It's clear that something needs to be done, and althouth this might not be it, this may be something crazy enough to draw more attention to the situation and lead to a more feasible deterrent.

[irishgrl]

I thought #2 could be an issue as well. I was also thinking that while rape is an awful act of violence, could this rape condom cause further violence? I mean, would the assailant lash out and kill the woman he was going to rape?
Will rapists merely begin sodomizing their victims instead?
It's clear that something needs to be done, and althouth this might not be it, this may be something crazy enough to draw more attention to the situation and lead to a more feasible deterrent.

and what would THAT be?
the only other thing I can think of that would *possibly* work is to make the punishment fit the crime: WHACK OFF the offending organ. I surmise it would only take the Government a short time to get the message across...

btw: in the article, the inventor stated that the rapist (after having encountered this condom) would be in too much pain, and too busy trying to get it off, to do further violence to the woman...

if you ask me, its a wonderfully thought out little thing-a-ma-jig.

[GateandGarden]

Which brings me to another point. I feel the need to explain myself here. I get the feeling that people have taken my "stubborn jar of olives" comment as such - a dirty, "cheap" joke. When in fact, it was merely meant as a bizarre comment in response to the statement that the product might be used for punishment. The stubborn jar of olives won't open, owner gets mad, boom! The jar is punished. Bad jar! Even if the jar was punished in the typical fashion that the product is used, which doesn't necessarily have to be the case, I do not view that as cheap, but rather bizarre and thought provoking. If this elaborate scenario did not immediately come to your mind, you did not understand the comment and therefore had no right in reading it. All of those to whom this applies - stand up and let the whole class hear.I understood you.

About the product--I just don't see how there could be an issue with selling it because there's a possibility of it being used on the wrong person for the wrong reason. We sell guns here knowing that they could be used in that way. :shrug: Also, Lux had a good point about the pepper spray.

[paleshadow]

and what would THAT be?
the only other thing I can think of that would *possibly* work is to make the punishment fit the crime: WHACK OFF the offending organ. I surmise it would only take the Government a short time to get the message across...

btw: in the article, the inventor stated that the rapist (after having encountered this condom) would be in too much pain, and too busy trying to get it off, to do further violence to the woman...

if you ask me, its a wonderfully thought out little thing-a-ma-jig.

Well, naturally the inventor of the device is going to claim that it wouldn't elevate the rape into a more violent act.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050831/hl_nm/anti_rape_condom_dc_1

The article in the link above states that anti-rape activists feel that it may cause more violence. It is a legitimate concern that can't be discounted just because the inventor says so.
Also, this device is supposed to be a deterant to rape, but wouldn't capital punishment also be a deterant, and a greater one at that, yet capital punishment was abolished in South Africa a decade ago. Many people feel that because of the nature of rape, there really aren't any deterents. It's not like other crimes that are premeditated.

http://www.iss.co.za/pubs/ASR/11No2/Schonteich.html
"It would appear that the majority of murders, rapes and assaults in South Africa (as in most countries) are not committed by calculating individuals who plan their crimes and weigh up the pros and cons of committing them. Rather, most of these crimes are committed in a moment of passion, anger, thoughtlessness, spite or drunkenness. The fear of being punished harshly if they are caught and convicted for their deeds, does little to prevent the criminal actions of such offenders".

As far as what other options there are, I certainly do not claim to know, or I wouldn't be sitting here posting this message, I'd be doing something about it. I don't feel this device would be practical, or completely effective, but as I said, it has brought national attention to the matter and that is someting in itself.

[strandinthewind]

Not prior to the act, prior to conviction. "1. it is inflicting a punishment prior to conviction of a crime." Even though it will be rather obvious the person is guilty, people for some reason are still innocent until proven guilty.

Not really. I mean some chick could trick the guy in an act of revenge. It certainly happens in regular rape cases :shrug: Note: this does not mean many rapes are valid - they most def. are - but bad people exist.

strand runs and hides from the femi-nazis

[strandinthewind]

and what would THAT be?
the only other thing I can think of that would *possibly* work is to make the punishment fit the crime: WHACK OFF the offending organ. I surmise it would only take the Government a short time to get the message across...

btw: in the article, the inventor stated that the rapist (after having encountered this condom) would be in too much pain, and too busy trying to get it off, to do further violence to the woman...

if you ask me, its a wonderfully thought out little thing-a-ma-jig.

that is because you hate all men and penises and the thought of torturing them gives you glee :shrug: You also cannot fathom that some women would ever use this device in a bad way because women can never do anything wrong - it is always the fault of the penis.

[strandinthewind]

actually your first point is inaccurate: the punishment is only inflicted at the MOMENT of the crime. INSTANT justice if you ask me.

It assumes a crime, which must be proven. But, you will never admit that because you hate men and all women are victims and the thought of a woman deceiving a man is foreign to you, though it surely happens :shrug:

as for cheating husbands, dont they deserve it?

So, a bereaved husband of a cheating wife can spray pepper spray in her vagina as an act of revenge and your okay with that - nice.

[strandinthewind]

Lighten up a bit. I don't think she is saying that all men are guilty and all women are victims. You're talking as if you think all women are evil and all men are the victims of their evil escapades.

I base my comments on prior conversations with Mary where she has said she has little time for evil men, women are victims of men, etc. But, I'll let her explain herself :cool:

As for me, I think men rape women all of the time and that is a horrible act for which the men should be convicted with no exceptions. But, in the context of this device, the possibility that it could be used in a bad way by a small number of women does not make its use worthwhile. That is all I am saying.

[strandinthewind]

Sure, but like Lux and most of the others have said, anyone can use anything in a negative way, but that doesn't stop them from being available to us. What's the difference between this and a gun or a heavy brick sitting bedside?

I want to prevent those too :shrug:

[paleshadow]

Sure, but like Lux and most of the others have said, anyone can use anything in a negative way, but that doesn't stop them from being available to us. What's the difference between this and a gun or a heavy brick sitting bedside?

I think the difference is that it's sort of like being automatically guilty. You can shoot someone, or hit them with a brick, but that's not an automatic implication that you were being raped. I think that if a man goes to the hospital because he has one of these things stuck on his penis the implication is that he was trying to rape someone, when perhaps he was under the impression that he was having consentual sex, and it could possibly be a case of the woman being malicious. If you go to the emergency room with a gunshot wound, or a concussion from a brick, they don't automatically associate that with rape.

[SuzeQuze]

I think the difference is that it's sort of like being automatically guilty. You can shoot someone, or hit them with a brick, but that's not an automatic implication that you were being raped. I think that if a man goes to the hospital because he has one of these things stuck on his penis the implication is that he was trying to rape someone, when perhaps he was under the impression that he was having consentual sex, and it could possibly be a case of the woman being malicious. If you go to the emergency room with a gunshot wound, or a concussion from a brick, they don't automatically associate that with rape.

I do not understand this device. If it can be so destructive to the penis, what is it doing while inserted in the female? I mean, it could really hurt her if something went wrong with it. I think that in theory it is a good idea but to put it to use doesn't seem feasible.

[amber]

I think the difference is that it's sort of like being automatically guilty. You can shoot someone, or hit them with a brick, but that's not an automatic implication that you were being raped. I think that if a man goes to the hospital because he has one of these things stuck on his penis the implication is that he was trying to rape someone, when perhaps he was under the impression that he was having consentual sex, and it could possibly be a case of the woman being malicious. If you go to the emergency room with a gunshot wound, or a concussion from a brick, they don't automatically associate that with rape.

In theory, that could be true, but I'm not sure you understand the scope of this problem. I'd call it a national emergency. And I think the instances of "women seeking revenge" would be so small as to be negligible, if not nonexistent. And this place does not have a justice system like America. Or a culture like America. There is little protection at all for women here, and few resources and processes for anyone to be brought to justice. These aren't isolated cases, in fact, it is the norm.

"Two men are due to appear at a court in Johannesburg on Tuesday, accused of raping a five-month-old girl who was discovered covered in blood and in tears.

It is the latest in a series of rapes of baby girls - some of them involving children less than one year-old, which has left South Africans reeling with horror.

Every day the newspapers bring awful revelations: a nine-month-old girl gang-raped by six men; an eight-month-old raped and left by the roadside.


I don't know how to take my anger out. I don't know why he did this

Mother of abused child

Outside the central Johannesburg magistrates' court, 200 demonstrators gathered carrying banners with slogans like "child rapists are not human".

Yet many protesters seem unable to understand why the rapes are happening.

"I don't have an answer, it's inhuman, it's inhuman," one told me.

Rape statistics from South Africa are so shocking as to be almost unbelievable - women's rights activists say one South African is raped every 26 seconds.

It is the young who are particularly vulnerable, with the police saying that more teenagers are raped than any other age group.

But even in a country numbed to horrific events, these cases are bewildering to South Africans, and making them question where their society is heading.

Unearthing truth

It is hardly believable - but some think that this is not new, only that a horrible truth is finally being acknowledged

Alexandria
Township youngsters are among the most vulnerable

"Actually it's not a new phenomenon, it's been something that you hide, you regard it as an embarrassment within the family. But now people have started to talk, they've decided that they've had enough," a woman protester told me.

A typical story reveals the horror.

On a poor Johannesburg estate, a family of eight sleep in one dirty bedroom.

Last week a neighbour seized the nine year old daughter, showed her pornographic magazines and then raped and indecently assaulted her. He gave her a few coins, and said sorry.

The little girl needed extensive surgery - her mother and father are inconsolable.

"I'm very angry, I'm very angry, I don't know how to take my anger out. I don't know why he did this, he used to come here and play with my children..." said the mother.

The father said he wanted to hunt down the rapists.

"How many parents' hearts must be broken?"

He is not alone in his rage.

Last weekend in Soweto a suspected child rapist was stoned to death.

The government is appealing for calm.

Myths

It is also trying to dispel a widespread rumour - that having sex with a virgin cures Aids.

Traditional healers, or witchdoctors, are blamed for spreading this idea, and encouraging child rape.

A sociologist, Lisa Vetton, draws a parallel with Europe, when child prostitution was rampant

"At that time venereal disease like Aids today was incurable. If you had gonorrhea or syphilis you were going to die. And exactly the same myth emerged, that sex with a virgin is going to cure you - so it seems like a very old response whenever sex and death are combined. Suddenly women - girls - get attributed with magical healing powers".


We must re-educate and empower men

Politician Nomvula Mokanyane

Some demonstrators are calling for longer sentences, even castration. Others are more considered.

Local politician Nomvula Mokanyane says that under apartheid, African men were stripped of power and prestige. Now they take their revenge on women, and on tiny children.

"We must re-educate and empower men. There are those who are sick who need to be re-educated. My worry is that men's power is threatened so they use their sexual organ to inflict pain on women."

South Africa's history, its poverty and the Aids pandemic all give insights into how some men behave.

But the rape of tiny children leaves people as mystified here as they would be in any other part of the world.

There is revulsion, but there is also bewilderment.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1703595.stm

[paleshadow]

In theory, that could be true, but I'm not sure you understand the scope of this problem. I'd call it a national emergency. And I think the instances of "women seeking revenge" would be so small as to be negligible. And this place does not have a justice system like America. There is little protection at all for women here, and few resources and processes for anyone to be brought to justice. These aren't isolated cases, in fact, it is the norm.

"Two men are due to appear at a court in Johannesburg on Tuesday, accused of raping a five-month-old girl who was discovered covered in blood and in tears.

It is the latest in a series of rapes of baby girls - some of them involving children less than one year-old, which has left South Africans reeling with horror.

Every day the newspapers bring awful revelations: a nine-month-old girl gang-raped by six men; an eight-month-old raped and left by the roadside.


I don't know how to take my anger out. I don't know why he did this

Mother of abused child

Outside the central Johannesburg magistrates' court, 200 demonstrators gathered carrying banners with slogans like "child rapists are not human".

Yet many protesters seem unable to understand why the rapes are happening.

"I don't have an answer, it's inhuman, it's inhuman," one told me.

Rape statistics from South Africa are so shocking as to be almost unbelievable - women's rights activists say one South African is raped every 26 seconds.

It is the young who are particularly vulnerable, with the police saying that more teenagers are raped than any other age group.

But even in a country numbed to horrific events, these cases are bewildering to South Africans, and making them question where their society is heading.

Unearthing truth

It is hardly believable - but some think that this is not new, only that a horrible truth is finally being acknowledged

Alexandria
Township youngsters are among the most vulnerable

"Actually it's not a new phenomenon, it's been something that you hide, you regard it as an embarrassment within the family. But now people have started to talk, they've decided that they've had enough," a woman protester told me.

A typical story reveals the horror.

On a poor Johannesburg estate, a family of eight sleep in one dirty bedroom.

Last week a neighbour seized the nine year old daughter, showed her pornographic magazines and then raped and indecently assaulted her. He gave her a few coins, and said sorry.

The little girl needed extensive surgery - her mother and father are inconsolable.

"I'm very angry, I'm very angry, I don't know how to take my anger out. I don't know why he did this, he used to come here and play with my children..." said the mother.

The father said he wanted to hunt down the rapists.

"How many parents' hearts must be broken?"

He is not alone in his rage.

Last weekend in Soweto a suspected child rapist was stoned to death.

The government is appealing for calm.

Myths

It is also trying to dispel a widespread rumour - that having sex with a virgin cures Aids.

Traditional healers, or witchdoctors, are blamed for spreading this idea, and encouraging child rape.

A sociologist, Lisa Vetton, draws a parallel with Europe, when child prostitution was rampant

"At that time venereal disease like Aids today was incurable. If you had gonorrhea or syphilis you were going to die. And exactly the same myth emerged, that sex with a virgin is going to cure you - so it seems like a very old response whenever sex and death are combined. Suddenly women - girls - get attributed with magical healing powers".


We must re-educate and empower men

Politician Nomvula Mokanyane

Some demonstrators are calling for longer sentences, even castration. Others are more considered.

Local politician Nomvula Mokanyane says that under apartheid, African men were stripped of power and prestige. Now they take their revenge on women, and on tiny children.

"We must re-educate and empower men. There are those who are sick who need to be re-educated. My worry is that men's power is threatened so they use their sexual organ to inflict pain on women."

South Africa's history, its poverty and the Aids pandemic all give insights into how some men behave.

But the rape of tiny children leaves people as mystified here as they would be in any other part of the world.

There is revulsion, but there is also bewilderment.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1703595.stm


I understand the scope of the problem. I am not arguing it's magnitude, but I don't feel that this device is the solution. I was also not arguing this method being used because I think there would be wide spread abuse of it. I don't really think that would be the case in South Africa as much as it would be in the United States. I was just responding to the comparison of people using a gun or a brick to prevent a rape as opposed to the anti rape condom. I believe what it said in the article I posted the link to that in the cases of crimes like rape the act is usually not premeditated, and therefor methods to deter it would not be effective. I also was reading that statistically in South Africa a large percentage of the rapes are comitted by family, or other people known to the victim.

As I've been reading this thread I've been thinking about the anti-rape condom, and how really it wouldn't deter anyone. For one thing, the rapist would have to know that the woman had the "condom" inserted. Is it not still traumatic to be penetrated? Is it not rape if the act is cut short, and the man does not ejaculate? The rape is still occuring.

I know this idea wouldn't go over well, but honestly it would be much more effective in keeping penetration from occuring and that would be to use something like a chastity belt. I know rape is so much more then the penetration, but I would think it be better to prevent the actual penetration then to just use a method that only stops it after it has been initiated already.

[amber]

okay, then.

[irishgrl]

The article in the link above states that anti-rape activists feel that it may cause more violence. It is a legitimate concern that can't be discounted just because the inventor says so.
Also, this device is supposed to be a deterant to rape, but wouldn't capital punishment also be a deterant, and a greater one at that, yet capital punishment was abolished in South Africa a decade ago. Many people feel that because of the nature of rape, there really aren't any deterents. It's not like other crimes that are premeditated.

http://www.iss.co.za/pubs/ASR/11No2/Schonteich.html
"It would appear that the majority of murders, rapes and assaults in South Africa (as in most countries) are not committed by calculating individuals who plan their crimes and weigh up the pros and cons of committing them. Rather, most of these crimes are committed in a moment of passion, anger, thoughtlessness, spite or drunkenness. The fear of being punished harshly if they are caught and convicted for their deeds, does little to prevent the criminal actions of such offenders".

As far as what other options there are, I certainly do not claim to know, or I wouldn't be sitting here posting this message, I'd be doing something about it. I don't feel this device would be practical, or completely effective, but as I said, it has brought national attention to the matter and that is someting in itself.

Well, as to the device bringing more violence, I believe that IF a rapist was snagged by this little gadget in the midst of a rape, his first act would be to Pull OUT and try and get the thingie off. As I understand it, it cant be removed by any means other than surgery so the rapist would be only hurting himself if he tried to remove it. Im assuming that this in itself would prevent him lashing out at the woman (who by now would be getting the heck outa Dodge if she's got half a brain) so, on the contrary, I can certainly understand the inventor's claims. The Anti Rape groups certainly havent been effective with all their speeches and candles have they?
huh.

[irishgrl]

that is because you hate all men and penises and the thought of torturing them gives you glee :shrug: You also cannot fathom that some women would ever use this device in a bad way because women can never do anything wrong - it is always the fault of the penis.

I dont hate all men or all penises. dont be silly. I hate the inequality between the sexes and I hate the crimes that men commit against women and children. However, Im not sure why you are defending cheating husbands.
And, btw: God must've been high when he gave penises to MEN because they've certainly showed they cant handle them........think of how many of Society's Ills are caused by wayward penises. Give me a break.

[strandinthewind]

. . . think of how many of Society's Ills are caused by wayward penises. Give me a break.

Like Bill Clinton :wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

BTW - just own up to being a male basher. You already said in another thread that you do not really have much use for males -- why shy away from that now :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

. . . However, Im not sure why you are defending cheating husbands . . . .

I am not defending anyone. I am just saying that the crime of battery is not a legal remedy. If any partner cheats, the other has no right to maim them. Are we back to Mrs. Bobbitt. I mean this whole auto revenge thing is sick and contrary to our nation of laws.

[strandinthewind]

So all forms of possible self-protection should be banned because of the minority who abuse them? Perhaps there should be a sophisticated screening process that screens these women for their probability of being raped. The low level threat women will be turned away immediately, the middle level threat women will be granted a two week waiting period - which upon completion, they will be reward with the device, the high level threat women will be rewarded the device will a small down payment, and the imminent threat level women will have the device inserted by a skilled professional free of charge, right then and there.

I said all that :laugh:

Come on - you know what I am talking about here. The bottom line is this penis clamp trap is bogus though perhaps effective if multiple penetration constitutes a rape.

But, to each their own.

[amber]

Like Bill Clinton :wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

BTW - just own up to being a male basher. You already said in another thread that you do not really have much use for males -- why shy away from that now :shrug:
love you, but I think that's rude. And the use of the term "femi-nazi"? very insulting. Besides, I haven't seen one on this board yet. And why would you ever use a term coined by Rush Limbaugh anyway? And even if someone was or wasn't male bashing, your points are still very weak in the context of South Africa. In America, you might have a point. Over there? Your point seems ludicrous to me.
respectfully.

[strandinthewind]

. . . And the use of the term "femi-nazi"? very insulting . . . .

I used femi-nazi waaaaay before Limbaugh :laugh:

Also, how is repeating Mary's words to her and pointing out that Clinton's penis got him in trouble anything other than factual?

Finally, I guess no women in South Africa will misuse this and/or they are allowed to inflict their own puinishment outside of the law :rolleyes:

[amber]

I am not defending anyone. I am just saying that the crime of battery is not a legal remedy. If any partner cheats, the other has no right to maim them. Are we back to Mrs. Bobbitt. I mean this whole auto revenge thing is sick and contrary to our nation of laws.
Cheating is not an issue in South Africa. Rape is. I don't even think their cultural system thinks of "marriage" and "relationships" in the same way at all. Seriously, nice points for American law, but inapplicable to South Africa. Totally inapplicable.

[strandinthewind]

Cheating is not an issue in South Africa. Rape is. I don't even think their cultural system thinks of "marriage" and "relationships" in the same way at all. Seriously, nice points for American law, but inapplicable to South Africa. Totally inapplicable.

Fine, please apply my comments only to America.

[amber]

I used femi-nazi waaaaay before Limbaugh :laugh:

Also, how is repeating Mary's words to her and pointing out that Clinton's penis got him in trouble anything other than factual?
I'm not talking about the clinton thing, I'm talking about addressing women who are just trying to make points as "male bashers" and "femi-nazis". :shrug: I felt insulted, and you weren't even talking to me. Doing that is intrinsicly disrespectful. Just my opinion, and how I felt. :wavey:

[SuzeQuze]

love you, but I think that's rude. And the use of the term "femi-nazi"? very insulting. Besides, I haven't seen one on this board yet. And why would you ever use a term coined by Rush Limbaugh anyway? And even if someone was or wasn't male bashing, your points are still very weak in the context of South Africa. In America, you might have a point. Over there? Your point seems ludicrous to me.
respectfully.

Plus I don't know why this got into pointing fingers at personalities. Who cares if Irishgrl is focused on what bad men do to good women? We know the opposite exists but it is off topic. The topic here is raping innocent women and children. I do not have any sympathy for those men whatsoever.

[amber]

Fine, please apply my comments only to America.
gladly. But we were never talking about America. The condom wasn't even considered to be used in America. It was developed solely for South Africa. :) :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

I'm not talking about the clinton thing, I'm talking about addressing women who are just trying to make points as "male bashers" and "femi-nazis". :shrug: I felt insulted, and you weren't even talking to me. Doing that is intrinsicly disrespectful. Just my opinion, and how I felt. :wavey:

Mary is a self described male basher :shrug:

You, on the other hand, are just a femi-nazi :eek: :p :p :p :p :wavey:

[amber]

Plus I don't know why this got into pointing fingers at personalities. Who cares if Irishgrl is focused on what bad men do to good women? We know the opposite exists but it is off topic. The topic here is raping innocent women and children. I do not have any sympathy for those men whatsoever.
Yes, good point. Excellent, in fact. :)

[strandinthewind]

gladly. But we were never talking about America. The condom wasn't even considered to be used in America. It was developed solely for South Africa. :) :shrug:

People here were not limiting their application of its use to SA - but so be it. Again, please limit all my reponses to the context of the US.

[amber]

Mary is a self described male basher :shrug:

You, on the other hand, are just a femi-nazi :eek: :p :p :p :p :wavey:
You can joke, but she just said she was insulted. But besides that, it wasn't part of the point, like Suze said. :)

[strandinthewind]

Plus I don't know why this got into pointing fingers at personalities. Who cares if Irishgrl is focused on what bad men do to good women? We know the opposite exists but it is off topic. The topic here is raping innocent women and children. I do not have any sympathy for those men whatsoever.

I though the tone of Mary's post was jarring and typical for her. Am I not allowed to comment on that?

Again, any man who rapes anyone whould be tried and convicted. But the rule of law must prevail over vigilantism - should we go back to lynching or beating people we just think are guilty :shrug:

[SuzeQuze]

You can joke, but she just said she was insulted. But besides that, it wasn't part of the point, like Suze said. :)

Boston.com had a huge story on this, one of those deeply fleshed out stories that is pages and pages long. It was so devastating to me. What goes on over there is horrific. There's also a lot of victim blaming that goes on. There is a lot of shame put on the woman who is raped. :distress:

[amber]

People here were not limiting their application of its use to SA - but so be it. Again, please limit all my reponses to the context of the US.
Who was talking about it for use in America? Surely not anyone but you in the last 3 pages. It's like, you were arguing about something we weren't even talking about. Why? :confused:

[SuzeQuze]

I though the tone of Mary's post was jarring and typical for her. Am I not allowed to comment on that?

Again, any man who rapes anyone whould be tried and convicted. But the rule of law must prevail over vigilantism - should we go back to lynching or beating people we just think are guilty :shrug:

Of course you can comment. I'm just saying that when you get into "you know you are a male hater" that takes it into personal territory. Is that a personal attack? Because it could be perceived that way.

[strandinthewind]

You can joke, but she just said she was insulted. But besides that, it wasn't part of the point, like Suze said. :)

Mary likely is insulted by most of the things I say - I think it is because I am a male. Again, if she is insulted by the term male basher, then she should not tout herself as one.

But besides that, it wasn't part of the point, like Suze said. :)

So, I can never comment on anything germaine :shrug: I'll be sure and remind you of that rule the next time you do it :rolleyes:

[amber]

I though the tone of Mary's post was jarring and typical for her. Am I not allowed to comment on that?

Again, any man who rapes anyone whould be tried and convicted. But the rule of law must prevail over vigilantism - should we go back to lynching or beating people we just think are guilty :shrug:

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT AMERICA!!!

and that example is specious, far fetched, and extreme for what we are actually talking about. Ridiculous logic for the situation, and you know it. :)

Obviously you can comment on it, But the use of the term feminazi, coupled with that comment, rubbed me the wrong way, is what I'm saying. You can do anything you want, I'm not the boss of you.

[strandinthewind]

Of course you can comment. I'm just saying that when you get into "you know you are a male hater" that takes it into personal territory. Is that a personal attack? Because it could be perceived that way.

I was paraphrasing her own words from a prior discussion in another thread :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

Who was talking about it for use in America? Surely not anyone but you in the last 3 pages. It's like, you were arguing about something we weren't even talking about. Why? :confused:

If I am mistaken regarding others' intent, I am contrite.

But, when I posited the Constitutional question, people responded. Do you think they thought I was talking about the SA Const.?

[strandinthewind]

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT AMERICA!!! . . .

Didn't I just tell you I am only talking about America :shrug: If you do not want to comment on America - then don't.

[amber]

Mary likely is insulted by most of the things I say - I think it is because I am a male. Again, if she is insulted by the term male basher, then she should not tout herself as one.



So, I can never comment on anything germaine :shrug: I'll be sure and remind you of that rule the next time you do it :rolleyes:
I said I was insulted.
You can comment on something we're not even talking about, but why would you? To take control of the conversation? To show off your knowledge? I'm not trying to be rude, I just don't see the point of that when no one was talking about it. :confused:

[amber]

Didn't I just tell you I am only talking about America :shrug: If you do not want to comment on America - then don't.
The condom isn't for america. Why are you talking about it in the context of America? I don't get it, it is not logical, it doesn't make sense. We were all talking about South Africa. :confused: :confused:

[strandinthewind]

The condom isn't for america. Why are you talking about it in the context of America? I don't get it, it is not logical, it doesn't make sense. We were all talking about South Africa. :confused: :confused:

I am not and otheres were not as well - so do not talk to me or us if you find it too confusing.

[strandinthewind]

I said I was insulted . . . .

Actually, in post 65 you said (emphasis supplied):

You can joke, but she just said she was insulted. But besides that, it wasn't part of the point, like Suze said. :)

Who is she?

[amber]

If I am mistaken regarding others' intent, I am contrite.

But, when I posited the Constitutional question, people responded. Do you think they thought I was talking about the SA Const.?
I scrolled back through, and I couldn't find the part where people were talking about the constitution or America. :shrug: Except you. :laugh:

[amber]

Actually, in post 65 you said (emphasis supplied):



Who is she?
Yes, we were both insulted. Mea Culpa. I was insulted by her being insulted.

[strandinthewind]

. . . You can comment on something we're not even talking about, but why would you? To take control of the conversation? To show off your knowledge? I'm not trying to be rude, I just don't see the point of that
when no one was talking about it. :confused:

Lord you have a bee in your bonnet. Unless I am mistaken and as you have already said, I can talk about anything I like. In this case, I was talking about the relevant and germaine topic of the application of this device in America. Sorry if that makes me sound like a braggart or rude.

[strandinthewind]

I scrolled back through, and I couldn't find the part where people were talking about the constitution or America. :shrug: Except you. :laugh:


Well, when people replied to my initial thread - what were they talking about? All that talk of conviction, crime, etc.

[amber]

I am not and otheres were not as well - so do not talk to me or us if you find it too confusing.
You better show me, because as far as I can tell, we were talking about South Africa. Which is the point, anyway, even if you did try to steer it to America.

[strandinthewind]

You better show me, because as far as I can tell, we were talking about South Africa. Which is the point, anyway, even if you did try to steer it to America.

So, no one here thought - wow this could or could not work here in America or elsewhere or even in general - I think you know better than that.

[amber]

Well, when people replied to my initial thread - what were they talking about? All that talk of conviction, crime, etc.
South Africa.
Even if they weren't, what is the point of talking about it in America? Again, it wasn't even mentioned for America. It's totally moot to talk about it in American context.

[strandinthewind]

South Africa.
Even if they weren't, what is the point of talking about it in America? Again, it wasn't even mentioned for America. It's totally moot to talk about it in American context.

Well, it was not for me and apparently others, but thanks for your opinion.

Hey everyone - listen up - we can no long talk about this anti-rape condom outside of the context of SA - Okay!!!!!

[amber]

So, no one here thought - wow this could or could not work here in America or elsewhere or even in general - I think you know better than that.
I don't care what people thought, (and I didn't think that, by the way, I only thought about it for SA.) the discussion was about South Africa! Show me the posts you are talking about (besides yours) and I can work with you.

[irishgrl]

Like Bill Clinton :wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

BTW - just own up to being a male basher. You already said in another thread that you do not really have much use for males -- why shy away from that now :shrug:

most males IVE met havent been much use...but I dont hate all men. my position is as I stated: I hate the inequality between the sexes, I hate the crimes men commit against women and children.

I also said (but you've conveniently overlooked it) that I have men friends and that all things considered, my men friends have been FAR superior to my female friends. Go look it up in past threads if you dont believe me. :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

I don't care what people thought, (and I didn't think that, by the way, I only thought about it for SA.) the discussion was about South Africa! Show me the posts you are talking about (besides yours) and I can work with you.


You have no intent of working with me and I already did.

[amber]

Well, it was not for me and apparently others, but thanks for your opinion.

Hey everyone - listen up - we can no long talk about this anti-rape condom outside of the context of SA - Okay!!!!!
Strand, by golly, you're making things up just so you can be right. You're steering the convo away from the point so you can be right.

[strandinthewind]

most males IVE met havent been much use...but I dont hate all men. my position is as I stated: I hate the inequality between the sexes, I hate the crimes men commit against women and children.

I also said (but you've conveniently overlooked it) that I have men friends and that all things considered, my men friends have been FAR superior to my female friends. Go look it up in past threads if you dont believe me. :shrug:


I know - I remember that. But, I still think you enjoy bashing males. I mean look at the tone of your comment about men deserving it even if they did not commit rape (careful - Amber objects to such rude and improper extrapolations) - but to each their own.

[amber]

You have no intent of working with me and I already did.
Which post number? I'll look. And I didn't say no one could talk about it it another context, I just wondered why you were doing that, since we all were not, right then, when you posted.

[strandinthewind]

Strand, by golly, you're making things up just so you can be right. You're steering the convo away from the point so you can be right.

Show me one thing I made up - tap tap tap :wavey:

Again, I and apprarently others were considering this outside the scope of SA. That you were not is your own affair.

[irishgrl]

I am not defending anyone. I am just saying that the crime of battery is not a legal remedy. If any partner cheats, the other has no right to maim them. Are we back to Mrs. Bobbitt. I mean this whole auto revenge thing is sick and contrary to our nation of laws.

Jason, we arent talking America here, we are talking AFRICA with a whole different set of laws/issues/etc........

btw: Lorena Bobbitt was entirely justified.

[amber]

I know - I remember that. But, I still think you enjoy bashing males. I mean look at the tone of your comment about men deserving it even if they did not commit rape (careful - Amber objects to such rude and improper extrapolations) - but to each their own.
Either way, calling someone a male basher is a weak argument, unworthy of you and this discussion. And, it was the term feminazi that really got me. :)

[strandinthewind]

Jason, we arent talking America here, we are talking AFRICA with a whole different set of laws/issues/etc........

btw: Lorena Bobbitt was entirely justified.

and if they convicted her, they would be correct as well - male basher.

Again, why not bring back lynch mobs? Hell, let's kill everyone accused of cheating or rape - why stop at cutting off their penis and throwing it in the middle of the road.

Finally, do not even attempt to hand me that BS that you were talking only about SA - because I am sooooo not buying that - you are salivating at the prospect of this in America and everywhere. Besides, you responded to my cheating husband example, which Amber already said was not a problem in SA, or did you not know that?

[strandinthewind]

Either way, calling someone a male basher is a weak argument, unworthy of you and this discussion. And, it was the term feminazi that really got me. :)

I think femi-nazi is hysterical and will continue to use it with glee.

Moreover, Mary is a self-professed male basher.

[amber]

Show me one thing I made up - tap tap tap :wavey:

Again, I and apprarently others were considering this outside the scope of SA. That you were not is your own affair.
Dude - have you shown me a post yet? I haven't seen it. And if people were considering it, I didn't see evidence of it in the discussion. And when you joined in after your initial comments, we were definitely talking about SA. I know, because I was the one who was doing the bulk of the talking.

[strandinthewind]

Dude - have you shown me a post yet? I haven't seen it. And if people were considering it, I didn't see evidence of it in the discussion. And when you joined in after your initial comments, we were definitely talking about SA. I know, because I was the one who was doing the bulk of the talking.

Again, and pay attention this time - when I set forth those two criteria, the comments to them were not limited to SA - unless people know the legal system of SA.

Moreover, was ReFleetwoodMac talking about SA olives only :eek: or is the device universally applicable for such jar opening :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[amber]

I think femi-nazi is hysterical and will continue to use it with glee.

Moreover, Mary is a self-professed male basher.
Great. Now about your propensity to talk about this in a context that no one else is talking about.... :laugh: :shrug:

You know, I think, for some bizarre reason, your ego is attached to being right in this case, against logic and evidence, and for reasons I cannot understand. So be it, I was, and prefer to, discuss this in the South African context, which I believe, right now, is the only relevant one, being that SA is the only place this condom is being considered for release.

[amber]

Again, and pay attention this time - when I set forth those two criteria, the comments to them were not limited to SA - unless people know the legal system of SA.

Moreover, was ReFleetwoodMac talking about SA olives only :eek: or is the device universally applicable for such jar opening :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
So, where is the post again? And your original criteria did not specifically mention America, either, I assumed you were talking about SA.
ReFM's joke? Are you honestly bringing up his comment about the jar of Olives as your evidence that someone was talking about America? hooboy. But since you are being ridiculous, and if i respond to that (which I am loathe to do) I would say his Olive jar was country-neutral. Was this the impetus and invitation for you to switch the subject to America? Tell me it wasn't. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Great. Now about your propensity to talk about this in a context that no one else is talking about.... :laugh: :shrug:

You know, I think, for some bizarre reason, your ego is attached to being right in this case, against logic and evidence, and for reasons I cannot understand. So be it, I was, and prefer to, discuss this in the South African context, which I believe, right now, is the only relevant one, being that SA is the only place this condom is being considered for release.

Well, my ego does know no bounds :laugh:

Seriously, I am glad no one at all in any degree even considered the application of this device in any scenario whatsoever outside of SA :rolleyes:

[SuzeQuze]

Well, my ego does know no bounds :laugh:

Seriously, I am glad no one at all in any degree even considered the application of this device in any scenario whatsoever outside of SA :rolleyes:

:laugh: You're a brat. And, I suspect you like to argue for argument's sake? I'm not even sure that you care that much about being right. Wait, I take that back. :laugh:

[dissention]

that is because you hate all men and penises and the thought of torturing them gives you glee :shrug: You also cannot fathom that some women would ever use this device in a bad way because women can never do anything wrong - it is always the fault of the penis.

Yeah, she's a regular Dworkin. :laugh: :p

[amber]

Well, my ego does know no bounds :laugh:

Seriously, I am glad no one at all in any degree even considered the application of this device in any scenario whatsoever outside of SA :rolleyes:
That's not what I was saying, that was not my point. You are employing bad logic, not to mention fallacious exaggeration. I said, we weren't talking about it in American context, and I wondered why you were. :) Never did I say no one considered it's implication, in their head, for America. How could I know that anyway?

[strandinthewind]

:laugh: You're a brat. And, I suspect you like to argue for argument's sake? I'm not even sure that you care that much about being right. Wait, I take that back. :laugh:

WHO MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

and, of course, it takes two to tango - in SA that is :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Yeah, she's a regular Dworkin. :laugh: :p


Would that be Dworkin Furs (http://www.dworkinfurs.com/) or Andrea?

[amber]

:laugh: You're a brat. And, I suspect you like to argue for argument's sake? I'm not even sure that you care that much about being right. Wait, I take that back. :laugh:
that's actually all he cares about right now, as far as I can tell, looking at the facts. He still has yet to show me the post where someone is talking about this for America.
and of course he likes to argue for arguments sake, as do i. :cool: :D However, in this case, I think I am right, and I am perterbed at Strand use of bad logic and outright exaggerations. :laugh: Also at his lack of facts to base it on.

[strandinthewind]

. . . Was this the impetus and invitation for you to switch the subject to America? Tell me it wasn't. :laugh:

Well, olives primarily are Greek, at least in SA and his comment was a free for all.

[amber]

WHO MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

and, of course, it takes two to tango - in SA that is :laugh:
Way to escape and bow out. ;) Did you find that magic post yet? :laugh:
Why don't you just admit you wanted to talk about something you knew about, rather than talking about what we were talking about? And also admit that you strayed from the point for no justifiable reason? :laugh: :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

that's actually all he cares about right now, as far as I can tell, looking at the facts. He still has yet to show me the post where someone is talking about this for America.
and of course he likes to argue for arguments sake, as do i. :cool: :D However, in this case, I think I am right, and I am perterbed at Strand use of bad logic and outright exaggerations. :laugh: Also at his lack of facts to base it on.

No, I did and twice and many at that - you just are being stubborn - dare I say a typical female :laugh: which of course is less rude than femi-nazi :wavey:

[amber]

Well, olives primarily are Greek, at least in SA and his comment was a free for all.
:laugh: :laugh:
Weak, dude, weak. "Oh, he said olives! we have those in America! I will now start talking about American law for this thing that they are only releasing to South Africa, for a South African problem!!"Is that kind of how your thought process went? :lol:
My goodness, that is funny.

[GateandGarden]

All I can say is that the notion of Mary being just a little, little bit femi-nazi-ish makes her hotter. :cool:

Y'all are gonna think I'm nuts. Oh well you probably already know that I am.

[amber]

No, I did and twice and many at that
I'm sorry, I don't understand what this means. :confused:
I'm being stubborn because I'm right, and you are flawed right now. :laugh: :laugh:
edit - oh, you mean you showed me the posts? I'm sorry, maybe I missed that. Which number posts were they? I know the Olive one isn't one of them, because that would be too ridiculous. I'm ready to apologize if you point them out to me. :)

[strandinthewind]

Way to escape and bow out. ;) Did you find that magic post yet? :laugh:
Why don't you just admit you wanted to talk about something you knew about, rather than talking about what we were talking about? And also admit that you strayed from the point for no justifiable reason? :laugh: :laugh:


once again, and stop painting your nails and pay attention :p - I thought people were considering the universal application of this device. I thought their comments to my post about the "Constitution" demonstrated that. That you did not get that is not really my concern nor does it make me wrong. Though, I suspect now that I have pissed every female here off, there will be a universal henpeck of "WE WERE TALKING ABOUT SA ONLY" which is a load of crap and you know it. Interestingly, few if any of the posts specifically refer to SA and most imply a general useage.

[ReFleetwoodMac]

Again, why not bring back lynch mobs? Hell, let's kill everyone accused of cheating or rape - why stop at cutting off their penis and throwing it in the middle of the road.
Ah, wonderful. Slippery slope. The most foolproof of all theories. When someone throws away a cracker that fell on the floor, they will, of course, quickly become rabid food wasters. Purchasing only to discard. That's exactly how it works.

[strandinthewind]

:laugh: :laugh:
Weak, dude, weak. "Oh, he said olives! we have those in America! I will now start talking about American law for this thing that they are only releasing to South Africa, for a South African problem!!"Is that kind of how your thought process went? :lol:
My goodness, that is funny.

I think you know I was being silly there :rolleyes:

[dissention]

In this case, I was talking about the relevant and germaine topic of the application of this device in America.

For the life of me, I don't understand why. Someone would have to be developmentally slow to think that such a gizmo would ever be introduced to the public in the United States.

[strandinthewind]

Ah, wonderful. Slippery slope. The most foolproof of all theories. When someone throws away a cracker that fell on the floor, they will, of course, quickly become rabid food wasters. Purchasing only to discard. That's exactly how it works.

True - but it is used all the time - esp. here in America - or are you talking about SA - Amber needs to know.

[strandinthewind]

For the life of me, I don't understand why. Someone would have to be developmentally slow to think that such a gizmo would ever be introduced to the public in the United States.

Well, that is why I was saying it would never be :shrug:

BTW - please refrain from relating this device to the US lest we confuse Amber again.

[amber]

once again, and stop painting your nails and pay attention :p - I thought people were considering the universal application of this device. I thought their comments to my post about the "Constitution" demonstrated that. That you did not get that is not really my concern nor does it make me wrong. Though, I suspect now that I have pissed every female here off, there will be a universal henpeck of "WE WERE TALKING ABOUT SA ONLY" which is a load of crap and you know it. Interestingly, few if any of the posts specifically refer to SA and most imply a general useage.
You are sooo wrong right now, it is hilarious! You were the only one talking about the constitution! And as far as it being a load of crap, I never even considered it's application for America. :confused: And neither did the article.
And? stop thinking with your *ick and your ego, and pay attention. :p *stop painting my nails and pay attention - :rolleyes: you're a sick, chauvenist man, Strand. Besides, you probably paint your nails more than I do :laugh: *

[dissention]

btw: Lorena Bobbitt was entirely justified.

Good christ. You're kidding me, right?

[GateandGarden]

Good christ. You're kidding me, right?I think so.

[strandinthewind]

You are sooo wrong right now, it is hilarious! You were the only one talking about the constitution! And as far as it being a load of crap, I never even considered it's application for America. :confused: And neither did the article . . . .

Well, when people were commenting on crimes, convictions, relative use of force, etc. - I suppose they were only talking about that is SA notwithstanding I brought it up in a general American context.

BTW - I have never painted my nails - though I get manicures weekly :wavey:

[amber]

True - but it is used all the time - esp. here in America - or are you talking about SA - Amber needs to know.
you're doing it again, just what he was describing! Omigod, and you don't even know it! you've been using slippery slope throughout this - and making the comment about me needing to know, is just the same thing. :laugh: :laugh:
And you can stop insulting me, just because I am more logical than you. :laugh:

[GateandGarden]

As for South Africa, I've never been, but I hear it's delicious.:lol::lol:

Okay, this thread really is one of the funniest I've seen in awhile. :sorry:

[amber]

Well, when people were commenting on crimes, convictions, relative use of force, etc. - I suppose they were only talking about that is SA notwithstanding I brought it up in a general American context.

BTW - I have never painted my nails - though I get manicures weekly :wavey:
Why? why bring it up for America when they were talking about South Africa? I hold that the reasons i previously mentioned still apply. ie, you wanted to talk about something you know about, and have a better frame of reference for, as opposed to the context of the real issue at hand.
And manicures take way longer than painting nails, so either way you spend more time on your nails than I do. :D

[strandinthewind]

:lol::lol:

Okay, this thread really is one of the funniest I've seen in awhile. :sorry:

I know - and it punctuated with Amber's vanity - even better :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

PS - don't bring up the useage of this device outside of SA lest you get flambeed :laugh: :rolleyes:

[amber]

Well, that is why I was saying it would never be :shrug:

BTW - please refrain from relating this device to the US lest we confuse Amber again.
I wasn't confused about the issue,*you bastard :laugh: *, I was confused as to your point of bringing up something no one was talking about.

[strandinthewind]

Why? why bring it up for America when they were talking about South Africa? I hold that the reasons i previously mentioned still apply. ie, you wanted to talk about something you know about, and have a better frame of reference for, as opposed to the context of the real issue at hand.

Again, I am allowed to bring up things I think are relevant to the topic and others apparently followed my suit. I mean please show me in Heather's post where she says "FOR GOODNESS SAKE DO NOT EVEN THINK ABOUT THIS DEVICE IN AMERICA" :shrug: If people objected to it so strngly, then they should not have engaged me in response so vociferously :cool:

And manicures take way longer than painting nails, so either way you spend more time on your nails than I do. :D


That is because I have a large ego - remember :wavey:

[amber]

I know - and it punctuated with Amber's vanity - even better :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

PS - don't bring up the useage of this device outside of SA lest you get flambeed :laugh: :rolleyes:
I don't have vanity that way. You're making stuff up again! How many times on this ledge alone have I admitted to being wrong? Many. You are the one who argues the most, and always has to be right. And your exaggeration of my emotions regarding this only prove that your vanity has been punctured. I didn't flame anyone - my only point was the illogicalness of you bringing up America when no one else was talking about it, thus bringing an unprecedented level of irrelevancy to the whole issue.
Are you going to insult me and make fun of me again? I hope so, because it only makes me think more that you have no logical argument, and that you know what I say is completely valid. :D

[dissention]

Again, why not bring back lynch mobs?

We already murder people in gas chambers and with poison, the only difference being that we apply hollow terms like "humane" to such deeds.

Hell, let's kill everyone accused of cheating or rape - why stop at cutting off their penis and throwing it in the middle of the road.

Who the hell is saying that we should kill rapists and philanderers? If this condom gets used by South Africa and those sick bastards decide that they want to go ahead and use their dicks as weapons against women, I say it's high time that their appendage gets injured. Serves them right.

You're saying that this anti-rape condom could be used in improper ways, but so can everything else in this world. I highly doubt that the percentage of misuses of the condom would outweigh the percentage of rapes that this device would cut down on. It would be one hell of a deterrent, that's for sure.

[strandinthewind]

. . . Who the hell is saying that we should kill rapists and philanderers? . . . .

Mary, would you like to comment?

[GateandGarden]

We already murder people in gas chambers and with poison, the only difference being that we apply hollow terms like "humane" to such deeds.Preach it.

[strandinthewind]

We already murder people in gas chambers and with poison, the only difference being that we apply hollow terms like "humane" to such deeds . . . .

While I agree with you for the most part (99% in fact) , at least they get a trial.

For Amber's sanity - do such trials exist in SA :wavey:

edited to hide my bad typing - cheap shots aside

[amber]

Again, I am allowed to bring up things I think are relevant to the topic and others apparently followed my suit. I mean please show me in Heather's post where she says "FOR GOODNESS SAKE DO NOT EVEN THINK ABOUT THIS DEVICE IN AMERICA" :shrug: If people objected to it so strngly, then they should not have engaged me in response so vociferously :cool:



That is because I have a large ego - remember :wavey:
Wow, if you thought that was relevant, well....Ah, there's the post I was looking for, "FOR GOODNESS SAKE DO NOT EVEN THINK ABOUT THIS DEVICE IN AMERICA". Although, scrolling back through, I can't find where she said that. It seems to me that the first post hinting at America was post #12, your post.

[amber]

While I agree with you for the most part (99% in fact) , at least they get a trail.

For Amber's sanity - do such trials exist in SA :wavey:
Ah, another insult, the last resort of the weak and cowardly. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Wow, if you thought that was relevant, well....Ah, there's the post I was looking for, "FOR GOODNESS SAKE DO NOT EVEN THINK ABOUT THIS DEVICE IN AMERICA". Although, scrolling back through, I can't find where she said that. It seems to me that the first post hinting at America was post #12, your post.


Again, I am glad none of those people, like I did, thought about this device outside of the SA use. I am glad none of that got in those posts. But, even if it did not, who cares because I did and wanted to discuss it. Sorry that is so offensive to you.

[dissention]

*Besides, you probably paint your nails more than I do :laugh: *

Oh...my...word.

:lol::lol::lol:

[GateandGarden]

While I agree with you for the most part (99% in fact) , at least they get a trail.Do they get trail mix with it? What about a walking stick?

It's fun to be an ass.

[strandinthewind]

Ah, another insult, the last resort of the weak and cowardly. :laugh:

Its a joke - BTW - have you finished the nail on the middle finger yet - if so I am sure you are showing it to me now :laugh:

[SuzeQuze]

Do they get trail mix with it? What about a walking stick?

It's fun to be an ass.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Nice one.

[strandinthewind]

Do they get trail mix with it? What about a walking stick?

It's fun to be an ass.

and you do it so well dahhhhling :xoxo: :D :angel:

[amber]

We already murder people in gas chambers and with poison, the only difference being that we apply hollow terms like "humane" to such deeds.



Who the hell is saying that we should kill rapists and philanderers? If this condom gets used by South Africa and those sick bastards decide that they want to go ahead and use their dicks as weapons against women, I say it's high time that their appendage gets injured. Serves them right.

You're saying that this anti-rape condom could be used in improper ways, but so can everything else in this world. I highly doubt that the percentage of misuses of the condom would outweigh the percentage of rapes that this device would cut down on. It would be one hell of a deterrent, that's for sure.
Wait, wait - but are you talking about in SA or America? Because I think strand can only think/talk about it if you talk about it for America....lets stay in his comfort zone, shall we? :lol:

[dissention]

Wait, wait - but are you talking about in SA or America? Because I think strand can only think/talk about it if you talk about it for America....lets stay in his comfort zone, shall we? :lol:

:laugh:

My death penalty comment applied to the US, the rest applied to South Africa.

[amber]

Its a joke - BTW - have you finished the nail on the middle finger yet - if so I am sure you are showing it to me now
Those are really funny! And, as a bonus for you, they take the place of any logical argument you could supply, or any facts or basis for what you are saying. :nod:

[amber]

:laugh:

My death penalty comment applied to the US, the rest applied to South Africa.
I was talking about the rest. :D

[strandinthewind]

Wait, wait - but are you talking about in SA or America? Because I think strand can only think/talk about it if you talk about it for America....lets stay in his comfort zone, shall we? :lol:


I can talk about both since you have insisted on doing so. You are the one with the problem - not I

Should I break that down into monosyllabic terms and/or phonetically for you :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

. . . Those are really funny! And, as a bonus for you, they take the place of any logical argument you could supply, or any facts or basis for what you are saying. :nod:

Well, I made my point already - but you just cannot get that:

1. Others may have been thinking about the application of this device outside of SA

and

2. It was perfectly okay for me to talk about the application of this device in America

Once again, sorry for confusing you.

[amber]

I can talk about both since you have insisted on doing so. You are the one with the problem - not I

Should I break that down into monosyllabic terms and/or phonetically for you :wavey:
I'll just find glee in knowing that I'm right, so much so that you say I have a "problem" :lol:

[strandinthewind]

I'll just find glee in knowing that I'm right, so much so that you say I have a "problem" :lol:

What is wrong about me applying this to America and/or any useage outside of SA. You have yet to explain that one except to say that you know noboby else was talking about anything other than SA, which you still have not explained how you know. How does that make you right?

[ReFleetwoodMac]

Should I break that down into monosyllabic terms and/or phonetically for you :wavey:
Boy, those are big words. Maybe I should wash my hair again.

[amber]

Well, I made my point already - but you just cannot get that:

1. Others may have been thinking about the application of this device outside of SA

and

2. It was perfectly okay for me to talk about the application of this device in America

Once again, sorry for confusing you.
1. No they weren't and
2. It's okay, but it was irrelevant to what everyone else was talking about when you chimed in. :D
But clearly, you just cannot get that. It's okay, I understand, everyone wants to talk about something they are more knowledgeable about. :) :wavey: I'll just chalk it up to that, and we can be on our merry way.
I'll think and talk about it in SA context, where it is being released, and you can go about having a hypothetical discussion regarding it's non existant release in America. There, are we both happy?

[ReFleetwoodMac]

1. No they weren't
With all due respect, since I appear to be more on your side, you don't know what everyone else was thinking, so you can't make the blanket statement.

[amber]

What is wrong about me applying this to America and/or any useage outside of SA. You have yet to explain that one except to say that you know noboby else was talking about anything other than SA, which you still have not explained how you know. How does that make you right?
You have yet to explain why you brought it up in the context of America. What's the point? It's not coming here. It never was. It's for SA. It's not wrong to apply it to SA, it just strikes me as pointless and egotistical to commandeer the conversation that way apropos of nothing. Which is why I asked you why you did it. Why do you want to discuss it in the context of America? Isn't there enough to talk about in the context of SA? Seriously, why?

[strandinthewind]

Boy, those are big words. Maybe I should wash my hair again.


How "Cabin in the Cotten" of you Ms. Davis :laugh:

[amber]

With all due respect, since I appear to be more on your side, you don't know what everyone else was thinking, so you can't make the blanket statement.
Neither can Strand, which is what he was doing. I only go by what people were talking about, whereas Strand apparently knows what they were thinking.
I didn't comment on what they were thinking, I commented on what they said. I posted awhile back that I have no way of knowing what people were thinking, and that I was only commenting on what they were saying, and this is true here, as well. Sorry you missed that, but I'm not so lame as to imply that I know what people were thinking. It was Strand who used that as one of his arguments. Something like "You know people were thinking about it's application in America, which is why I brought it up". If you read through, I'm sure you can find it. :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

You have yet to explain why you brought it up in the context of America. What's the point? It's not coming here. It never was. It's for SA. It's not wrong to apply it to SA, it just strikes me as pointless and egotistical to commandeer the conversation that way apropos of nothing. Which is why I asked you why you did it. Why do you want to discuss it in the context of America? Isn't there enough to talk about in the context of SA? Seriously, why?

I do not really need a reason do I? Unless you are the thought police - which you are being right now.

In any event, I thought it would be interesting. It apparently was to others :shrug: Sorry for any offense and obvious confusion. I mean threads often go waaay of topic around here. At least mine was a logical step and related.

[strandinthewind]

I didn't comment on what they were thinking, I commented on what they said. I posted awhile back that I have no way of knowing what people were thinking, and that I was only commenting on what they were saying, and this is true here, as well. Sorry you missed that, but I'm not so lame as to imply that I know what people were thinking. It was Strand who used that as one of his arguments. Something like "You know people were thinking about it's application in America, which is why I brought it up". If you read through, I'm sure you can find it. :wavey:

Well, they never specifically limited those to SA now did they? Thus, you must know or assume what they were thinking. To me, the comments were very general.

[ReFleetwoodMac]

Neither can Strand, which is what he was doing. I only go by what people were talking about, whereas Strand apparently knows what they were thinking.
I didn't comment on what they were thinking, I commented on what they said. I posted awhile back that I have no way of knowing what people were thinking, and that I was only commenting on what they were saying, and this is true here, as well. Sorry you missed that, but I'm not so lame as to imply that I know what people were thinking. It was Strand who used that as one of his arguments. Something like "You know people were thinking about it's application in America, which is why I brought it up". If you read through, I'm sure you can find it. :wavey:
There are other people reading the thread who have not posted, and the people who have posted may not have included every detail of their thoughts on the matter down to the hypotheticals. He said "Others may have been thinking about it" whereas you blatantly said "No, they weren't."

[amber]

I do not really need a reason do I? Unless you are the thought police - which you are being right now.

In any event, I thought it would be interesting. It apparently was to others :shrug: Sorry for any offense and obvious confusion. I mean threads often go waaay of topic around here. At least mine was a logical step and related.
Well, I would hope you did have a reason, but I guess you don't have to have one. I guess I just think in this case it's better to talk about what's actually occuring, then something hypothetical that has about zero chance of occuring. You know, the issue at hand, and all that?
Did you think it would be interesting because you know more about it? And, I guess, I thought it was more interesting to talk about it in the context of south africa, and wanted to focus the attention in that direction. Which was also a logical step, because the whole thing was about SA.
I guess, basically, I didn't have much interest in talking about it in America, and you didn't have much interest in talking about it in SA. Perhaps we are even steven.

[amber]

There are other people reading the thread who have not posted, and the people who have posted may not have included every detail of their thoughts on the matter down to the hypotheticals. He said "Others may have been thinking about it" whereas you blatantly said "No, they weren't."
I mispoke, I didn't read that he said "thinking", I thought he said "saying", or writing.
So, in response to what he actually said, I would say: Why are you (Strand) bringing up what others may be thinking as part of your argument? All kinds of people could be thinking of all kinds of things all the time, but all we can really base our reactions on, is what the people we are talking to are saying. To do otherwise is ludicrous.
Oh, and by the way, when you post, do you consider what all the people, ever, reading what you say, who don't say anything themselves, are thinking? Do you think of every possible hypothetical that could relate to what you are saying, before you say it? Please, I think not. bad logic, again.

[dissention]

Christ, I've been to less catty drag shows, ladies.

[amber]

Christ, I've been to less catty drag shows, ladies.
I didn't think we were being that catty. And, please, Pot, Kettle says give me a break... :lol:

[ReFleetwoodMac]

I mispoke, I didn't read that you said "thinking", I thought you said "saying", or writing.
So, in response to what you actually said, I would say: Why are you bringing up what others may be thinking as part of your argument? All kinds of people could be thinking of all kinds of things all the time, but all we can really base our reactions on, is what the people we are talking to are saying. To do otherwise is ludicrous.
I'm not sure if you are addressing me with that question, but I was defending Mr. Strandinthewind because he said people may have been thinking it. I don't think it's ludicrous at all to try and figure out what other people may thinking. In real life, somebody might be hiding their feelings and it's up to you to try and not upset them more. But in this case, Mr. Strandinthewind was simply defending his actions by saying that other people may have been thinking the same thing as him and not saying it. But that last time I tried to explain his actions, I got a quick and stealthy scolding for being incorrect. This will be the last time, I promise.

[ReFleetwoodMac]

Oh, and by the way, when you post, do you consider what all the people, ever, reading what you say, who don't say anything themselves, are thinking? Do you think of every possible hypothetical that could relate to what you are saying, before you say it? Please, I think not. bad logic, again.
That's exactly my point. People don't usually include every little detail of what they're thinking.

Edit: Actually now that I reread what you wrote, that's not even what I said. I wasn't talking about people thinking about what they say and how it comes off to everyone else. I was talking about them saying everything they think to themselves.

[amber]

Well, they never specifically limited those to SA now did they? Thus, you must know or assume what they were thinking. To me, the comments were very general.
No, I didn't. You were, if anyone was. I was responding to the actual article, and the facts theirin, a point you seem to be missing. I didn't say I knew what anyone was thinking. I was going on what people were saying, about the article. You can talk about whatever you want, but you seem to be missing the whole point that you were responding to the article, without actually talking about what was in the article, instead talking about America. Again, you can do it, but it seems pointless, distracting, ego serving, and not germaine to me, as the product is NOT COMING TO AMERICA. But hey, go right ahead. YOu can do it, I just didn't understand why you did it in this case.

[dissention]

I didn't think we were being that catty. And, please, Pot, Kettle says give me a break... :lol:

Puhleeze!

"You Femi-Nazi!"
"I'm insulted!"
"Well, I like that term and I'll use it, you Femi-Nazi!"
"That's what I took offense to!"
"Shh, you're a male basher!"
"Don't call me that, at least I can stay on topic!"
"What, I can't apply it to America? Your vanity is so obvious!"
"Your ego is attached to your pathetic argument!"
"Male basher! Femi-Nazi! You just want to slice my pecker off!"
"Stay on topic!"
"I am!"
"You're not!"
"Shut up, you male bashers are all about disposing of all penises!"

[amber]

That's exactly my point. People don't usually include every little detail of what they're thinking.
well, that doesn't relate at all to what I said, then. Sorry. Strand was trying to use as an argument "well, you know that people were thinking about it in America" and my point was - how do you know what they were thinking, and why would you base an argument on what people may be thinking. Why would you post something in case someone was thinking about it. It's ridiculous.

[SuzeQuze]

Puhleeze!

"You Femi-Nazi!"
"I'm insulted!"
"Well, I like that term and I'll use it, you Femi-Nazi!"
"That's what I took offense to!"
"Shh, you're a male basher!"
"Don't call me that, at least I can stay on topic!"
"What, I can't apply it to America? Your vanity is so obvious!"
"Your ego is attached to your pathetic argument!"
"Male basher! Femi-Nazi! You just want to slice my pecker off!"
"Stay on topic!"
"I am!"
"You're not!"
"Shut up, you male bashers are all about disposing of all penises!"

In other words, strand started it and is trying to end it as well. :laugh:

Seriously, do we realize that this thread has become about nothing? I'm just watching the ball go back and forth.

[ReFleetwoodMac]

Strand was trying to use as an argument "well, you know that people were thinking about it in America"
He said "MAY." I thought I made that very clear.

[amber]

:) Puhleeze!

"You Femi-Nazi!"
"I'm insulted!"
"Well, I like that term and I'll use it, you Femi-Nazi!"
"That's what I took offense to!"
"Shh, you're a male basher!"
"Don't call me that, at least I can stay on topic!"
"What, I can't apply it to America? Your vanity is so obvious!"
"Your ego is attached to your pathetic argument!"
"Male basher! Femi-Nazi! You just want to slice my pecker off!"
"Stay on topic!"
"I am!"
"You're not!"
"Shut up, you male bashers are all about disposing of all penises!"
Still, Pot, Kettle says thanks for the input. also, "stay on topic" is not catty.

[ReFleetwoodMac]

Seriously, do we realize that this thread has become about nothing? I'm just watching the ball go back and forth.
It's finally getting fun. It's no longer about rape and anti-feminism.

[amber]

He said "MAY." I thought I made that very clear.
So what, may? I may be able to levitate objects with my mind. It's still ridiculous to use as a justification, and also, I'm pretty sure that's not why he brought it up anyway.

[irishgrl]

Mary is a self described male basher :shrug:

You, on the other hand, are just a femi-nazi :eek: :p :p :p :p :wavey:

I am NOT a self described male basher. YOU described me as that.

I dont label YOU btw........

[amber]

In other words, strand started it and is trying to end it as well. :laugh:

Seriously, do we realize that this thread has become about nothing? I'm just watching the ball go back and forth.
Gee, no, suze, I didn't realize that. Well, now it can take it's place with almost all the other threads on the board, in good company. :) I don't mind though, because right now there are no other threads that interest me anyway, save the Katrina one.

[strandinthewind]

I didn't think we were being that catty . . . .

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[ReFleetwoodMac]

So what, may? I may be able to levitate objects with my mind. It's still ridiculous to use as a justification, and also, I'm pretty sure that's not why he brought it up anyway.
It may not be, but he had a thought, and he expressed it. You repeatedly, for about six pages, demanded that he justify his thought. "Well, maybe someone else had that thought too," he says. Sorry Mr. Strandinthewind. Last time, really.

[strandinthewind]

I'm not sure if you are addressing me with that question, but I was defending Mr. Strandinthewind because he said people may have been thinking it. I don't think it's ludicrous at all to try and figure out what other people may thinking. In real life, somebody might be hiding their feelings and it's up to you to try and not upset them more. But in this case, Mr. Strandinthewind was simply defending his actions by saying that other people may have been thinking the same thing as him and not saying it. But that last time I tried to explain his actions, I got a quick and stealthy scolding for being incorrect. This will be the last time, I promise.

Thanks for the defense!!!!!! :xoxo:

Would you like an olive :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Puhleeze!

"You Femi-Nazi!"
"I'm insulted!"
"Well, I like that term and I'll use it, you Femi-Nazi!"
"That's what I took offense to!"
"Shh, you're a male basher!"
"Don't call me that, at least I can stay on topic!"
"What, I can't apply it to America? Your vanity is so obvious!"
"Your ego is attached to your pathetic argument!"
"Male basher! Femi-Nazi! You just want to slice my pecker off!"
"Stay on topic!"
"I am!"
"You're not!"
"Shut up, you male bashers are all about disposing of all penises!"

Please do not post our bedroom conversation in public dear.

[amber]

It may not be, but he had a thought, and he expressed it. You repeatedly, for about six pages, demanded that he justify his thought. "Well, maybe someone else had that thought too." Sorry Mr. Strandinthewind. Last time, really.
Originally I brought it up, because I thought the arguments he was making were ridiculous. Until I realized he was talking about America. then I wondered why.
Actually, though, why am I talking to you? You don't like me anyway, have been nothing but rude always, and would probably say the sky was green if I said it was blue. Your bias is fairly transparent.

[GateandGarden]

Please do not post our bedroom conversation in public dear.:lol::lol::lol:

[strandinthewind]

. . . Seriously, do we realize that this thread has become about nothing? I'm just watching the ball go back and forth.

as opposed to every other thread around here :laugh: :laugh:

Did I mention your mere presence classes up this thread!

[ReFleetwoodMac]

Actually, though, why am I talking to you? You don't like me anyway, have been nothing but rude always, and would probably say the sky was green if I said it was blue. Your bias is fairly transparent.
That's not fair. Remember that time we gave each other kudos? I will always cherish that. Besides, I've been on your side for the majority of this thread.

[GateandGarden]

Did I mention your mere presence classes up this thread!I see you sucking up to the moderator. ;)

[irishgrl]

I though the tone of Mary's post was jarring and typical for her. Am I not allowed to comment on that?

Again, any man who rapes anyone whould be tried and convicted. But the rule of law must prevail over vigilantism - should we go back to lynching or beating people we just think are guilty :shrug:

as you can see, I am WAY behind in my responses since I have only gotten to page 7 but from the get-go, Jason you have attacked ME and all I did was say that I thought this was a very well thought out device, and I believe it could be very effective.
How is that jarring? besides, if you think a post is jarring, say the post is jarring. dont start your name calling.

You, on the other hand started applying US legal ethics to a different country and its issues/solutions which was a mistake as subsequent posts have shown.

[amber]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
:lol: :lol: :lol:
You're right, you were being catty....

[strandinthewind]

Originally I brought it up, because I thought the arguments he was making were ridiculous. Until I realized he was talking about America. then I wondered why.
Actually, though, why am I talking to you? You don't like me anyway, have been nothing but rude always, and would probably say the sky was green if I said it was blue. Your bias is fairly transparent.

are you hearing voices now too :laugh: Joan of Ark - hello

Seriously, I thought I was being relevant. I think you know I was, at least to some, but are still pissed about me jokingly calling Mary and then you a femi-nazi - that your heels are dug in. Fine - you win. I had no idea what the hell I was talking about in this thread, rudely changed the topic, and Mary loves dick.

[GateandGarden]

...and Mary loves dick.Damn it!

:laugh:

[strandinthewind]

I see you sucking up to the moderator. ;)


Well, she is cutie quze - suze that is :laugh:

[amber]

are you hearing voices now too :laugh: Joan of Ark - hello

Seriously, I thought I was being relevant. I think you know I was, at least to some, but are still pissed about me jokingly calling Mary and then you a femi-nazi - that your heels are dug in. Fine - you win. I had no idea what the hell I was talking about in this thread, rudely changed the topic, and Mary loves dick.
Dude, honestly, you don't know me. The femi nazi thing is the least of my concerns. :rolleyes:
It's okay, really. It's human nature to want to talk about what we know about best.

[strandinthewind]

as you can see, I am WAY behind in my responses since I have only gotten to page 7 but from the get-go, Jason you have attacked ME and all I did was say that I thought this was a very well thought out device, and I believe it could be very effective.
How is that jarring? besides, if you think a post is jarring, say the post is jarring. dont start your name calling.

femi-nazi :p :p :p


You, on the other hand started applying US legal ethics to a different country and its issues/solutions which was a mistake as subsequent posts have shown.

I thought it was germaine - so sue me. And do not for one minute tell me you were not in any way talking about America in your posts - that is hogwash and you know it. You might change your mind now, but that is a woman's right they say :wavey: :wavey:

[dissention]

It's okay, really. It's human nature to want to talk about what we know about best.

No, we want to talk about things we know nothing about. Makes for some remarkably stimulating conversations. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Dude, honestly, you don't know me. The femi nazi thing is the least of my concerns. :rolleyes:
It's okay, really. It's human nature to want to talk about what we know about best.

Well, I thought you thought I knew everything about everything. If not, you should by now :wavey:

AND - aren't you glad I now inform you of things instead of my initial bark of "look it up!"

[irishgrl]

Mary likely is insulted by most of the things I say - I think it is because I am a male. Again, if she is insulted by the term male basher, then she should not tout herself as one.
Jason, I never said I was a male basher and I didnt say I was insulted about being called a male basher. All of the male basher comments came from YOU.

Ive not usually been insulted by anything ANYONE said, male OR female, because I happen to like debate, but your suppositions are off the mark. you misread me, you mischaracterize me and you are just plain WRONG. sorry. I actually like you (what I know of you) and have expressed admiration for you in the past. If you dont feel the same, oh well.

[strandinthewind]

No, we want to talk about things we know nothing about. Makes for some remarkably stimulating conversations. :laugh:


That is why I love you dear :nod: :nod:

[amber]

No, we want to talk about things we know nothing about. Makes for some remarkably stimulating conversations. :laugh:
Well, at that point we did know something. We knew what the article told us about south africa. And I knew a bit about US law and ethical standards, so I could've talked about that with strand, just like he could've talked about south africa. I chose to stay with the topic. He chose something else that he knew MORE about. Your glibness and blanket logic are appreciated, though.

[strandinthewind]

.
Jason, I never said I was a male basher and I didnt say I was insulted about being called a male basher. All of the male basher comments came from YOU.

Ive not usually been insulted by anything ANYONE said, male OR female, because I happen to like debate, but your suppositions are off the mark. you misread me, you mischaracterize me and you are just plain WRONG. sorry. I actually like you (what I know of you) and have expressed admiration for you in the past. If you dont feel the same, oh well.

Okay - Get off the cross Mary (oh how many times I have said that to others including Tower :laugh: )

1. I know you like men.

2. You constantly talk the side of the female in every argument.

3. I no longer give a ****

4. wanna make out :D

[amber]

Well, I thought you thought I knew everything about everything. If not, you should by now :wavey:

AND - aren't you glad I now inform you of things instead of my initial bark of "look it up!"
hahaha. If that were true, you probably would have talked about SA with us. :laugh:
Inform me of what?

[strandinthewind]

Well, at that point we did know something. We knew what the article told us about south africa. And I knew a bit about US law and ethical standards, so I could've talked about that with strand, just like he could've talked about south africa. I chose to stay with the topic. He chose something else that he knew MORE about. Your glibness and blanket logic are appreciated, though.


Actually, you chose to ignore my new topic and stay with the old topic. Both were valid despite your thread nazi behavior ---ooooooooo two nazis in one day :laugh:

[GateandGarden]

4. wanna make out :DThat is so unfair. I was the one making all the suggestive comments in this thread. Okay, two. But still! :p

[irishgrl]

and if they convicted her, they would be correct as well - male basher.

Again, why not bring back lynch mobs? Hell, let's kill everyone accused of cheating or rape - why stop at cutting off their penis and throwing it in the middle of the road.

Finally, do not even attempt to hand me that BS that you were talking only about SA - because I am sooooo not buying that - you are salivating at the prospect of this in America and everywhere. Besides, you responded to my cheating husband example, which Amber already said was not a problem in SA, or did you not know that?

Lorena Bobbitt was defending herself against a man who consistently overpowered her. FORCED her (RAPED her).

Also: I defy you to show me ONE time I brought up America. YOU were the one who did that. It never occurred to me to apply it in America. I thought you meant the cheating husbands in Africa. which IS a problem too btw.

as for responses and seeing other posts, Yes, I do miss comments and only see them after the page refreshes. so, get over yourself.

[dissention]

Actually, you chose to ignore my new topic and stay with the old topic. Both were valid despite your thread nazi behavior ---ooooooooo two nazis in one day :laugh:

Three if you count Shrub.

[SuzeQuze]

That is so unfair. I was the one making all the suggestive comments in this thread. Okay, two. But still! :p


Don't worry, he won't follow through because he has an issue with women. :laugh:

[amber]

Actually, you chose to ignore my new topic and stay with the old topic. Both were valid despite your thread nazi behavior ---ooooooooo two nazis in one day :laugh:
new topic?! the old one hadn't even barely gotten going! You chose to ignore the actual topic of the thread. :) Nazi? Your the one who has to steer topics to something you know a lot about. :laugh: God forbid you don't get to grace us with you're knowledge on this one. :rolleyes:

[dissention]

Lorena Bobbitt was defending herself against a man who consistently overpowered her. FORCED her (RAPED her).

Give me a break, Mary.

That whole incident smacked of a woman wanting to take revenge on her man for being a bastard. She didn't try to kill him, she took a knife and sliced off his johnson while he slept. She then drove off and tossed it out the window. When asked why by the police, she said it was because he was a selfish man who would not give her an orgasm. :shrug:

[irishgrl]

and Mary loves dick.
actually, I DO. just not the losers attached to most of them.......... :eek:

[strandinthewind]

just not the losers attached to 99% of them.......... :eek:

NOW we finally agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[irishgrl]

Give me a break, Mary.

That whole incident smacked of a woman wanting to take revenge on her man for being a bastard. She didn't try to kill him, she took a knife and sliced off his johnson while he slept. She then drove off and tossed it out the window. When asked why by the police, she said it was because he was a selfish man who would not give her an orgasm. :shrug:

Actually I remember this incident well. And I still think she was justified.
Her husband RAPED her repeatedly. if not for Lorena, Americans wouldnt be able to comprehend marriage-rape. if not for NIcole Simpson, Americans would be unaware of Domestic Violence
and by unaware, I mean on a National Scale, where it is acknowledged by society at large.

[irishgrl]

femi-nazi :p :p :p
I thought it was germaine - so sue me. And do not for one minute tell me you were not in any way talking about America in your posts - that is hogwash and you know it. You might change your mind now, but that is a woman's right they say :wavey: :wavey:

Jason you are flat WRONG. WRONG I was NOT talking about America, YOU were. YOU started that line of thinking and it wasnt appropriate. I didnt change my mind about anything. you are just engaging in the straw man device now, along with all your OTHER flawed arguments.
so sad.

[strandinthewind]

Actually I remember this incident well. And I still think she was justified.
Her husband RAPED her repeatedly. if not for Lorena, Americans wouldnt be able to comprehend marriage-rape. if not for NIcole Simpson, Americans would be unaware of Domestic Violence
and by unaware, I mean on a National Scale, where it is acknowledged by society at large.

Rule of Law - lost on another one :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

Jason you are flat WRONG. WRONG I was NOT talking about America, YOU were. YOU started that line of thinking and it wasnt appropriate. I didnt change my mind about anything. you are just engaging in the straw man device now, along with all your OTHER flawed arguments.
so sad.

LOL - your nose is growing :wavey:

[irishgrl]

NOW we finally agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

uhm, I edited (from 99% to "most")
because I DO like SOME men....

[dissention]

Actually I remember this incident well. And I still think she was justified.
Her husband RAPED her repeatedly. if not for Lorena, Americans wouldnt be able to comprehend marriage-rape. if not for NIcole Simpson, Americans would be unaware of Domestic Violence
and by unaware, I mean on a National Scale, where it is acknowledged by society at large.

I'm sorry, but I smell the pungent aroma of bull****. :xoxo:

I remember the Bobbitt case just as well and I don't believe half of what Bobbitt claimed. She was a loony toon who told lots of stories to cover up her premeditated act of revenge. There is no question that he physically abused and was an all around bastard, but she wasn't justified in what she did. Cutting off his pecker was an act of revenge, she knew what she was doing and I think the judgement in her case was bull****. As for domestic violence, society was aware of the horrors of it well before OJ murdered his wife. Domestic violence awareness was all the rage in the eighties. You want to know when society first became aware or it on a national scale, look at the burning bed case.

[irishgrl]

LOL - your nose is growing :wavey:

Jason: just put your money where your mouth is. go find any quotes where I brought up America. I defy you. I consistently said AFRICA.

You blew it my friend :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

Jason: just put your money where your mouth is. go find any quotes where I brought up America. I defy you. I consistently said AFRICA.

You blew it my friend :shrug:

In every post - even those responding to me and my horrid change of topic? If so, touche' If not, your nose is growing.

[strandinthewind]

I'm sorry, but I smell the pungent aroma of bull****. :xoxo:

I remember the Bobbitt case just as well and I don't believe half of what Bobbitt claimed. She was a loony toon who told lots of stories to cover up her premeditated act of revenge. There is no question that he physically abused and was an all around bastard, but she wasn't justified in what she did. Cutting off his pecker was an act of revenge, she knew what she was doing and I think the judgement in her case was bull****. As for domestic violence, society was aware of the horrors of it well before OJ murdered his wife. Domestic violence awareness was all the rage in the eighties. You want to know when society first became aware or it on a national scale, look at the burning bed case.

Mary will never take the side of the male - nor will she ever admit that females suffer just a little less these days - you know that.

[irishgrl]

I'm sorry, but I smell the pungent aroma of bull****. :xoxo:

I remember the Bobbitt case just as well and I don't believe half of what Bobbitt claimed. She was a loony toon who told lots of stories to cover up her premeditated act of revenge. There is no question that he physically abused and was an all around bastard, but she wasn't justified in what she did. Cutting off his pecker was an act of revenge, she knew what she was doing and I think the judgement in her case was bull****. As for domestic violence, society was aware of the horrors of it well before OJ murdered his wife. Domestic violence awareness was all the rage in the eighties. You want to know when society first became aware or it on a national scale, look at the burning bed case.

you didnt believe her. so what? I dont blame her for getting revenge OK?
he was more than an all around bastard, he forced himself on her against her will.

The burning bed case got Farrah Fawcett more attention than Domestic Violence did as a societal ill.......it took the death of Nicole Simpson to get the country FINALLY to recognize domestic violence in the law enforcement arena such that police will remove the violent party (usually the man) from the home

[strandinthewind]

you didnt believe her. so what? I dont blame her for getting revenge OK? . . . .

So, you openly advocate ignoring the law and opting for vigilantism - but only for battered women. In fact, why should they bother with the rule of law at all :rolleyes:

[dissention]

you didnt believe her. so what? I dont blame her for getting revenge OK?
he was more than an all around bastard, he forced himself on her against her will.

The burning bed case got Farrah Fawcett more attention than Domestic Violence did as a societal ill.......it took the death of Nicole Simpson to get the country FINALLY to recognize domestic violence in the law enforcement arena such that police will remove the violent party (usually the man) from the home

I'm sorry, I don't buy any of that. We'll agree to disagree, I suppose.

[irishgrl]

In every post - even those responding to me and my horrid change of topic? If so, touche' If not, your nose is growing.

My original comments regarding the article were all regarding AFRICA.
at NO TIME did I infer that this was a product for America.
YOU did.

My posts since then have been:
a) responding to your name calling
b) reiterating that it was YOU who brought up America
c) responding to the reference to Lorena Bobbitt, which was a different topic

again, you painted yourself into a corner.

[strandinthewind]

My original comments regarding the article were all regarding AFRICA.
at NO TIME did I infer that this was a product for America.
YOU did.

My posts since then have been:
a) responding to your name calling
b) reiterating that it was YOU who brought up America
c) responding to the reference to Lorena Bobbitt, which was a different topic

again, you painted yourself into a corner.


Hmmm - your original post ( # 28) responding to me did not include the word Africa - your nose is growing :wavey:

In fact, you said:

actually your first point is inaccurate: the punishment is only inflicted at the MOMENT of the crime. INSTANT justice if you ask me.

as for cheating husbands, dont they deserve it?

Yep - Afirca all over that :laugh:
__________________

[irishgrl]

So, you openly advocate ignoring the law and opting for vigilantism - but only for battered women. In fact, why should they bother with the rule of law at all :rolleyes:

the rule of law didnt protect them now did it? it didnt deter the rapists/batterers did it?

[irishgrl]

Hmmm - your original post responding to me did not include the word Africa - your nose is growing :wavey:

no. because the post I was responding to didnt include the word Africa.
Your corner is shrinking. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

the rule of law didnt protect them now did it? it didnt deter the rapists/batterers did it?

The rule of law is what we live by Mary. I think you know that. Hopefully, the next time you react you realize this. Otherwise - its jail time for you no matter your insane feminist views.

[strandinthewind]

no. because the post I was responding to didnt include the word Africa.
Your corner is shrinking. :laugh:


So, then you could not possibly have been refering to Africa.

Game Set Match.

[irishgrl]

So, then you could not possibly have been refering to Africa.

Game Set Match.

Call the REF....you fouled!!

you brought up an AMERICAN legal argument. I responded to your post.
prior to that, my posts were in response to the content of the article which was about Africa. the content of my posts change as the thread evolves.
so, scratch that for you.

[paleshadow]

Well, as to the device bringing more violence, I believe that IF a rapist was snagged by this little gadget in the midst of a rape, his first act would be to Pull OUT and try and get the thingie off. As I understand it, it cant be removed by any means other than surgery so the rapist would be only hurting himself if he tried to remove it. Im assuming that this in itself would prevent him lashing out at the woman (who by now would be getting the heck outa Dodge if she's got half a brain) so, on the contrary, I can certainly understand the inventor's claims. The Anti Rape groups certainly havent been effective with all their speeches and candles have they?
huh.

I don't think it's fair to suggest that just because this device is getting so much attention that the anti-rape groups have no value. I think it's a bit insulting to people who have spent years, and not just hours debating it on a message board, trying to find a plausible solution to suggest that.
I have to say that I really don't think this condom would have a dibilitating effect on the attacker like you think it would. It certainly wouldn't be as effective as pepper spray in the eyes, or a knee to the testicles. I think that it's unrealistic to think the guy is just going to get up and run away. It is one of many scenarios that could happen.

Can we take this point by point again for a second to get back on track? The argument here is would this device be effective in preventing a rape from occuring.

1. Rape is not a crime that is thought to be detered based on punishment. Proof of this can be seen in the fact that incidents of rape increased even in the years where capital punishment was active in South Africa. Furthermore, the rapist would have to be aware that his victim was wearing one of these condoms to be detered.

2. Once you dismiss the condoms ability to deter the rape, even if the condom is present, the penetration is still going to happen. You aren't preventing the rape, but rather stoping it while it was in process. (which is not a bad thing, but again, the idea I think should be to prevent the rape from happening at all).

3. The limitations as far as age are definately an issue here also. Babies are being raped, small children. I doubt this device will do anything for them, but even if it were something that could be utilized by children, I seriously doubt that someone sick enough to rape a babie would stop and think about the anti-rape condom.

Also, something that I think has been overlooked mostly, but I think was mentioned in an article Amber posted was the spread of Aids/HIV. Do you really want to have a device that's going to no doubt cause bleeding of someone who potentially has aids while he is in the vaginal cavity? And please don't suggest that he would pull out so fast from the pain that blood transfer wouldn't be an issue. I don't think any woman here would be willing to play russian roulette with that scenario.

If we are talking about the prevention of rape, again I would have to say a device that stopped penetration worn by the woman would be something I'd suggest. Do I think it's fair that it would be the womans responsibility, absolutely not, but if I had a daughter I would rather her wear something like a device that prevented access to her genitals, than something that will only work once she is already being violated.

I think the anti-rape condom is more of a punishment than a deterent, and I think that it is really a just punishment too and fitting of the crime, but we're talking about prevention here and not punishment. I would have no problem if they had some type of iron lung like device that they put on rapists penises as punishment.

[irishgrl]

The rule of law is what we live by Mary. I think you know that. Hopefully, the next time you react you realize this. Otherwise - its jail time for you no matter your insane feminist views.
the rule of law is applied unequally as you well know. there are SO many perps out there who get away with so much....and women and children pay the price.
as for my "reacting" I am not sure what you are talking about. Obviously I havent taken a rusty knife to anyone or assassinated anyone though I may think it an emminently laudable idea.........I think Im showing great restraint.

[strandinthewind]

Call the REF....you fouled!!

you brought up an AMERICAN legal argument. I responded to your post.
prior to that, my posts were in response to the content of the article which was about Africa. the content of my posts change as the thread evolves.
so, scratch that for you.


Actually, prior to that, you had not commented :wavey:

[irishgrl]

I don't think it's fair to suggest that just because this device is getting so much attention that the anti-rape groups have no value. I think it's a bit insulting to people who have spent years, and not just hours debating it on a message board, trying to find a plausible solution to suggest that.
I didnt say anti-rape groups have no value. I admit I was being sarcastic, but my point was that the groups over there have been ineffective. if you figure that the true number of rapes is 4 TIMES the 50,000 that ARE reported, then they've certainly NOT been effective to date. At least this device is attempting to do something proactive.

as for your other points, they are valid, and deserve further consideration

[strandinthewind]

I didnt say anti-rape groups have no value. I admit I was being sarcastic, but my point was that the groups over there have been ineffective. if you figure that the true number of rapes is 4 TIMES the 50,000 that ARE reported, then they've certainly NOT been effective to date. At least this device is attempting to do something proactive.

as for your other points, they are valid, and deserve further consideration

and you assume all reported are valid, which is not the case and you know it :shrug:

In the end, rape is a horrible thing that boild down more often that it should to a he said she said thing. Are we always to believe the woman in those limited instances, like a violent rape, where the lack of consent is less clear?

[irishgrl]

Actually, prior to that, you had not commented :wavey:
ok then OTHER Than that.....my posts were about Africa
that is until you started Mary Bashing.

[irishgrl]

and you assume all reported are valid :shrug:
dont you?:shrug:

[strandinthewind]

dont you?:shrug:

No - I have seen cases where they were not and proven as such.

[strandinthewind]

ok then OTHER Than that.....my posts were about Africa
that is until you started Mary Bashing.

I was not bashing - you are a male basher - wear it proudly :wavey:

Femi-nazi was a joke and I think you know that.

[irishgrl]

I was not bashing - you are a male basher - wear it proudly :wavey:

Femi-nazi was a joke and I think you know that.

I am NOT a male basher. I am PRO female and children. I abhore the way men get preferential treatment in this world. I abhore the way women and children are treated. and I speak out about it. it is a fact that women and children are treated like second class citizens compared to men. if that makes me femi-nazi, then so be it.

If society treated everyone equal you wouldnt hear a peep outa me.
until that day comes, I plan on shouting loud and long that what is going on is unequal, unjust and should stop.

[amber]

I was not bashing - you are a male basher - wear it proudly :wavey:

Femi-nazi was a joke and I think you know that.
You are a chauvinist. Wear it proudly!

[strandinthewind]

You are a chauvinist. Wear it proudly!

How am I a chauvinist? Clearly I was joking about your nails, etc., in this thread - or has all humor gone from SA?

But, if that is your def., I wear it proudly.

[amber]

How am I a chauvinist? Clearly I was joking about your nails, etc., in this thread - or has all humor gone from SA?

But, if that is your def., I wear it proudly.
okay, it's a joke. Just the fact you thought of it is yucky to me. Plus when you said something something "but that's what I would expect from a girl".
But we'll say it's a joke. :) It's just not my favorite kind of joke, I guess. It's almost like a racist joke, to me. But then I really do not make male specific jokes myself. Never really even think of it. But you're from the south, though, so maybe that explains it... :lol:
Anyway, if you were joking in your head, I'll just chill out about it right now. I made that southern joke so we could call it even. ;) :xoxo:

[strandinthewind]

okay, it's a joke. Just the fact you thought of it is yucky to me. Plus when you said something something "but that's what I would expect from a girl".
But we'll say it's a joke. :) It's just not my favorite kind of joke, I guess. It's almost like a racist joke, to me. But then I really do not make male specific jokes myself. Never really even think of it. But you're from the south, though, so maybe that explains it... :lol:
Anyway, if you were joking in your head, I'll just chill out about it right now. I made that southern joke so we could call it even. ;) :xoxo:

can we go drinking now :blob2: :blob1: :blob2: :blob1:

[SuzeQuze]

can we go drinking now :blob2: :blob1: :blob2: :blob1:

:laugh: I'm in for a round!

[amber]

can we go drinking now :blob2: :blob1: :blob2: :blob1:
:blob1: :blob2: :blob1:
see, really, we have so much in common! :laugh:
To say something nice, I've rarely encountered such a gentleman. :cool: (when I met you in real life). :)

[lagringader&r]

Or a stubborn jar of olives.

I really, really, really think I'm in love with you. You ARE the Grandmaster!!!

As for the *device* I think it's an awesome idea. Barbaric? Isn't humiliating and degrading a female by ripping off her clothes and inserting your penis while she screams and crys barbaric? The device is something that should have been invented a long time ago. Time to turn the tables. I haven't been raped but i know somebody who has (don't we all?) and anybody who even attempts to do that to a female deserves this and much more. BIG props for that little gizmo.

(See how I controlled my gutter mouth :))

[strandinthewind]

:blob1: :blob2: :blob1:
see, really, we have so much in common! :laugh:
To say something nice, I've rarely encountered such a gentleman. :cool: (when I met you in real life). :)

nor I you :o :o :o

[amber]

nor I you :o :o :o
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
did you just call me a gentleman??? :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
did you just call me a gentleman??? :laugh:

well, if you were one, you'd be a fine one my lady :xoxo:

[lagringader&r]

I made it through the first five pages of this thread but don't have time to read the whole thing so sorry if any of this got covered.

I can't believe anybody would be opposed to this device. I can see some of the reasons I guess but I think the outcome (which is paralyzing the man temporarily so the chick can get away and then later having proof he's a rapist) is the goal. I know somebody who was raped and she has never fully gotten over it. I didn't really understand that it's more than physical. It's humiliating. You don't have to hate guys (I LOVE guys) to know that some of them have used their strength over women to brutalize them since the beginning of time. Then it goes to court, not enough proof or, worse, the chick was wearing a short skirt and it gets thrown out and he walks away to do it again and again and again while she gets herself a good shrink. Yep, that's exactly what happened to the chick I know. I was as pissed off as her and that was just one case and I happened to know the victim. Pepper spray or mace is useless if her hands are pinned down. This device give proof and a temporary stun (NOT revenge) to give her time to get away. This thing has nothing to do with revenge. I bet a small minority of females would use it on their husbands/bfs/whatever. Less than that. Easy solution if that happens? The chick gets fined/sentenced herself for brutality or domestic abuse.

One thing that it wouldn't cover is the crime of *acquaintance rape*. If it's a guy you know, he'd just say you wanted it. Then again, if she wanted it, why would she be wearing the thing? It's probably not perfect but I think it's the closest thing a woman has had to defending herself in a situation like that EVER. Just my opinion.

[ReFleetwoodMac]

I really, really, really think I'm in love with you. You ARE the Grandmaster!!!
We may have to change that to GrandMaster in the near future. I'll notify you by fax if that day ever comes.

[DavidMn]

Anything that's stops rape. I'm in favor of. :thumbsup:

[irishgrl]

Just one quick comment, "cheating husbands" is so broad it's unfair to lump them all in as bastards.

Is this directed at me? I was only responding to Jason's argument that a woman might punish a "cheating husband" by using the anti-rape condom....I dont see anywhere where I said "cheating husbands were bastards"? :shrug:

[irishgrl]

I made it through the first five pages of this thread but don't have time to read the whole thing so sorry if any of this got covered.

I can't believe anybody would be opposed to this device. I can see some of the reasons I guess but I think the outcome (which is paralyzing the man temporarily so the chick can get away and then later having proof he's a rapist) is the goal. I know somebody who was raped and she has never fully gotten over it. I didn't really understand that it's more than physical. It's humiliating. You don't have to hate guys (I LOVE guys) to know that some of them have used their strength over women to brutalize them since the beginning of time. Then it goes to court, not enough proof or, worse, the chick was wearing a short skirt and it gets thrown out and he walks away to do it again and again and again while she gets herself a good shrink. Yep, that's exactly what happened to the chick I know. I was as pissed off as her and that was just one case and I happened to know the victim. Pepper spray or mace is useless if her hands are pinned down. This device give proof and a temporary stun (NOT revenge) to give her time to get away. This thing has nothing to do with revenge. I bet a small minority of females would use it on their husbands/bfs/whatever. Less than that. Easy solution if that happens? The chick gets fined/sentenced herself for brutality or domestic abuse.

One thing that it wouldn't cover is the crime of *acquaintance rape*. If it's a guy you know, he'd just say you wanted it. Then again, if she wanted it, why would she be wearing the thing? It's probably not perfect but I think it's the closest thing a woman has had to defending herself in a situation like that EVER. Just my opinion.


well said.
I might add that much (if not all) of what I said (except re: Lorena Bobbitt)
has been echoed by other posters on this thread.

[irishgrl]

No I didn't say you said those words, hence no quotation around them but the implication was that all cheating husbands deserve to be punished or that if they were punished, they deserve it.
well, as an fyi, my focus was not on cheating husbands or punishing them. I was only curious as to why Jason would defend them.

I can tell you that I have my own personal experiences with cheating husbands, and I freely admit I dont have much use for a man in my life but I know that there are good men out there. They are just taken already! And, I prefer to be my own boss anyway, so :shrug:
its SUCH a relief not to have to deal with a man's ego or attitudes on a daily basis. :nod:

[irishgrl]

Ok. Still despite the fact that many cheating husbands have been arseholes, I don't think all those who have cheated should be treated as such.
out of curiosity: WHY?

what makes some different from others? isnt cheating cheating? it all hurts somebody? :shrug:

(as I read this I realized: Lux you sound like ME talking about Clinton's military activities being less harmful than Bush's, and I sound like AMBER, with her smelly poop theory :eek: :lol: )

[dissention]

out of curiosity: WHY?

what makes some different from others? isnt cheating cheating? it all hurts somebody? :shrug:

I have a question, Mary. Since you consider all cheating husbands aresholes, do you also consider all cheating wives to be aresholes?

[GateandGarden]

out of curiosity: WHY?

what makes some different from others? isnt cheating cheating? it all hurts somebody? :shrug:All situations are different. What if the guy has been treated very badly by his wife? I can't see making a blanket statement about those who cheat.

[irishgrl]

I have a question, Mary. Since you consider all cheating husbands aresholes, do you also consider all cheating wives to be aresholes?
WAIT! I didnt say that! I was asking Lux why she DIDNT! I only asked a question!!

btw: wives who cheat are no better than husbands who cheat.

[dissention]

WAIT! I didnt say that! I was asking Lux why she DIDNT! I only asked a question!!

btw: wives who cheat are no better than husbands who cheat.

Okay, just wondering. :)

[GypsySorcerer]

out of curiosity: WHY?

what makes some different from others? isnt cheating cheating? it all hurts somebody? :shrug:

(as I read this I realized: Lux you sound like ME talking about Clinton's military activities being less harmful than Bush's, and I sound like AMBER, with her smelly poop theory :eek: :lol: )
Sometimes situations are not as they appear.

[irishgrl]

All situations are different. What if the guy has been treated very badly by his wife? I can't see making a blanket statement about those who cheat.


ok. I can accept that. but that answer should also apply to other topics like oh say.........military actions by former and current Presidents yes?