Anti-Rape Condom? - Page 15

irishgrl · #**211** 09-01-2005, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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 · #**212** 09-01-2005, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishgrl

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

In fact, you said:

Quote:

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

__________________

irishgrl · #**213** 09-01-2005, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

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

irishgrl · #**214** 09-01-2005, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

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

strandinthewind · #**215** 09-01-2005, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishgrl

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 · #**216** 09-01-2005, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishgrl

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

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

Game Set Match.

irishgrl · #**217** 09-01-2005, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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 · #**218** 09-01-2005, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishgrl

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 · #**219** 09-01-2005, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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 · #**220** 09-01-2005, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishgrl

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

irishgrl · #**221** 09-01-2005, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paleshadow

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 · #**222** 09-01-2005, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishgrl

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

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?