Anti-Rape Condom?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

Please don't ever stop posting here.

I am soooooo envisioning a Gary Larson comic on that

[amber]

Originally Posted by Lux

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.

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

[sparky]

Originally Posted by amber

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.

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]

Originally Posted by sparky

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]

Originally Posted by ReFleetwoodMac

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.

Originally Posted by lux

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. 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.

[amber]

Originally Posted by Lux

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 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]

Originally Posted by amber

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by ReFleetwoodMac

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]

Originally Posted by ReFleetwoodMac

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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by paleshadow

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]

Originally Posted by ReFleetwoodMac

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. Also, Lux had a good point about the pepper spray.

[paleshadow]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

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=stor...pe_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]

Originally Posted by ReFleetwoodMac

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 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