Anti-Rape underwear

[psijac]

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/ar-wear-confidence-protection-that-can-be-worn

What does the peanut gallery think? Good idea or bad? What happens if they don't work due to manufacture error? Is the manufacturer legally liable? Would you wear these yourself?

 

[Asita]

Honestly, I don't get it. I mean, yay stronger clothes and all, but I don't see how this is supposed to work. It mentions a 'unique locking mechanism' that'll supposedly provide an obstacle to rapists. Huzzah if it works as advertised, but I don't understand how exactly they'd make something like that for a pair of briefs, at least not to any extent that provides more than a short distraction. Stranger still, they also claim that EMTs wouldn't be hindered by them if they needed to remove them, citing non-cut-resistant segments...what exactly is preventing a prospective rapist from cutting these same areas? Maybe I missed something[footnote]Granted, I read the page rather than watched the video, so it might have been adequately explained in there[/footnote], but I'm more confused by the concept and apparent design than anything else.

 

[Lionsfan]

So it's just underwear that's hard to take off?


I mean, they can still be taken off right?


Also, don't most rapes occur between someone the girl knows? Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the % of stranger rape was quite low than where we think it is.

Edit: Just finished the video. So if a girl is drunk, how easy is it going to be to switch the clock hands to "unlock" them. What if she has to use the bathroom really bad?

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

Sounds like it could do more harm than good. I might be wrong on this, but I imagine the last thing a rape victim would want is to piss off or frustrate her attacker, which seems to be the point to this. Hell, they even use the word "frustrate" as one of the goals. It may also influence bringing knives into the general vicinity of her genitalia to remove the garment, which again I assume is a less than wanted outcome.

Yeah, I don't see this working at all. In fact, I imagine this already violent crime would became even more dangerous if this is employed.

 

[TheIceQueen]

This looks pretty neat and if it actually does work, plenty need to be shipped to Africa, pronto.

On the subject of them not working, it doesn't sound as though they're designed to be 100% proof. It's basically a lock, and like a lock on your door or car, no lock is completely impenetrable. They're designed to frustrate and stall the perpetrators for as long as possible in the hopes that they'll just give up, which is the philosophy behind most lock designs. With that in mind, I doubt they can be held liable. If the company who provides your home with a lock can't be sued after a break-in unless you can prove that the lock they provided you with was faulty, I'm sure this company could use the same legalese to ensure the same sort of idea. Unless you can prove it's faulty, it's still doing what it was designed to do. And given the nature of the item, they're probably going to do a lot of quality assurance of their product.

 

[Terminal Blue]

No. They won't be liable. They'd only be liable if they made a specific claim about their product, and I can't see one.

Simply claiming that a product offers "protection" doesn't specify the degree of protection it offers. Likewise, "more power to control the outcome" doesn't guarantee control of the outcome.

In fact, if you read very carefully, you'll realize that the product is actually being marketed primarily as a means of controlling feelings of anxiety about rape. This is necessary, because in most of the situations a person is actually likely to be raped they probably won't have thought to put their protective underwear on.

Honestly, the only thing that bothers me (beyond making money off fear, which is never a particularly classy thing to do) is that said page is full of really bad advice and heavily misuses the studies it puts forward. It seems to suggest that "self-defence" or "resistance" means actually fighting or physically overpowering your attacker, which is not true and not how statistical studies of rape outcomes actually measure resistance.

I don't understand how exactly they'd make something like that for a pair of briefs, at least not to any extent that provides more than a short distraction.

Short distractions can be very significant in determining the outcome of that situation, because they might afford an ability to escape or to call for help or just spook an uncommitted attacker. A personal defence alarm works on this principle.

Heck, one piece of anti-rape advice I've heard given to women is to try and urinate. It might sound funny. But anything which is unexpected and distracting can help provide an opportunity to escape.

 

[seventy two]

It is an interesting concept, though I worry that they would become too much of a hassle for the women to actually bother wearing after a short time.

Also this particular example feels a bit money grubby. 100$ in funding would get you 30% off on a single piece of clothing, either meaning the clothing is going to be extremely expensive for women to buy or they are just trying to get what free money they can rather than offer value for the funders.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

The fact that this is being marketed disgusts me. Not the product itself or the fact that women want to feel safe. That I can totally get. It's just that the need for this product is still widespread enough in our 'civilized' world is making me feel ill. Let's not make more self-protective products necessary in the future. This behavior isn't an unstoppable 'fact of life', it isn't something we should be passively guarding against with stuff like this. We need to attack the attitude that makes it possible head on.

Respect people. You don't have to like them, just respect them. It's what everyone deserves. Let's try to be a part of a generation that respects each other enough to make this kind of stuff unnecessary.

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

The fact that this is being marketed disgusts me. Not the product itself or the fact that women want to feel safe. That I can totally get. It's just that the need for this product is still widespread enough in our 'civilized' world is making me feel ill. Let's not make more self-protective products necessary in the future. This behavior isn't an unstoppable 'fact of life', it isn't something we should be passively guarding against with stuff like this. We need to attack the attitude that makes it possible head on.

Respect people. You don't have to like them, just respect them. It's what everyone deserves. Let's try to be a part of a generation that respects each other enough to make this kind of stuff unnecessary.

Ehhh.. I think you're preaching to the fucking choir here, mate. I doubt there are any rapists on the Escapist to heed your plea. Besides, if someone is willing to molest another human being in the first place, I can't imagine they'd care about respecting other people and living in part of a nice generation.

 

[Asita]

Short distractions can be very significant in determining the outcome of that situation, because they might afford an ability to escape or to call for help or just spook an uncommitted attacker. A personal defence alarm works on this principle.

Evil, you just gave me the best idea for a competing product. Screamer Underwear! Try to pull them down and a shrill voice rings out with all the power of an airhorn. (Spring-loaded jump-scare optional)

More seriously, point taken in that regard. I'm just not seeing it posing enough of an obstacle to make a notably difference. But maybe I'm just a pessimist.

...Captcha: half empty...damn you captcha!

 

[Boris Goodenough]

Honestly, the only thing that bothers me (beyond making money off fear, which is never a particularly classy thing to do) is that said page is full of really bad advice and heavily misuses the studies it puts forward. It seems to suggest that "self-defence" or "resistance" means actually fighting or physically overpowering your attacker, which is not true and not how statistical studies of rape outcomes actually measure resistance.

whether by forceful or non-forceful means

It doesn't seem like they are specifying what resisitance it is though.

 

[Colour Scientist]

One worrying implication of this is that it puts more of an impetus on the victim to "not get raped."

The clothing choices of rape victims already can come up in court against them (something being too short, too revealing...) so I can see someone going for "were you wearing your anti-rape underwear, no? Just regular underwear? Well, what did you think would happen?"

That's very crudely phrased but you get my point.

Also, don't most rapes occur between someone the girl knows? Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the % of stranger rape was quite low than where we think it is.

Yup, that's true.
They're just playing on the paranoia of certain women and parents of younge girls, trying to get them to buy something that might make them feel safer.

 

[Terminal Blue]

It doesn't seem like they are specifying what resisitance it is though.

Although we believe that self-defense skills can help to resist an attempted assault, they cannot be used in all situations and will not always be effective. Other tools of self-defense currently available are also not effective in many common settings of sexual assault. Products such as pepper spray, tear gas, stun guns, etc. require that the potential victim be very alert and might be taken away to use against her.

Personal defence alarm?

It might seem a small thing, but it's actually a massive oversight, because the list they give is not a list of "tools of self-defence", it's a list of weapons. Now, I'm not going to deny that weapons can be tools of self-defence in the right hands at the right time but they are not the only tools which can aid your personal safety and, on net balance, are not actually particularly good or effective as self-defence measures for the average person.

A broader assessment of "tools for self defence" would include things which increased the chance of successfully escaping a situation or drawing attention to yourself, and yet these are overlooked because it wouldn't suit the marketing to admit that there are already effective preparations you can make if you are concerned about rape. That strikes me as quite irresponsible.

 

[Boris Goodenough]

Personal defence alarm?

It might seem a small thing, but it's actually a massive oversight, because the list they give is not a list of "tools of self-defence", it's a list of weapons. Now, I'm not going to deny that weapons can be tools of self-defence in the right hands at the right time but they are not the only tools which can aid your personal safety and, on net balance, are not actually particularly good or effective as self-defence measures for the average person.

A broader assessment of "tools for self defence" would include things which increased the chance of successfully escaping a situation or drawing attention to yourself, and yet these are overlooked because it wouldn't suit the marketing to admit that there are already effective preparations you can make if you are concerned about rape. That strikes me as quite irresponsible.

Don't you think it's a oversight rather than marketing?

 

[Scarim Coral]

I was kind of expecting the pants design to be something like from Robin Hood: Men in Tights or Naked Gun 33 1/3 (as in have an padlock and all).
As for the item itself, I don't really think it will be that effective.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Don't you think it's a oversight rather than marketing?

I'm not entirely sure it can be reduced to one or the other.

Regardless though, I have to say that I find the whole tone very odd. Certainly, the review they link to, which already strikes me as a little polemic, is much more careful in its language.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Ehhh.. I think you're preaching to the fucking choir here, mate. I doubt there are any rapists on the Escapist to heed your plea. Besides, if someone is willing to molest another human being in the first place, I can't imagine they'd care about respecting other people and living in part of a nice generation.

While I doubt anyone is going to hold up their hand and say "I'm a rapist", wouldn't be surprised if we got a crowd of "I'm not a rapist but...".

I remember being told on this forum that if a woman got raped, it was her fault for not fighting back harder. An extreme example, but the general attitude is quite common.

Similarly, where I live, there is a big media fuss about a guy who got attacked on NYE, that it was cowardly and thuggery, how could this happen, something should be done. A woman got raped also on NYE, and the media is being very quiet about it, excepting for how it's a reminder that women should be more careful.

...

Secondly, a lot of rapists don't consider themselves to be rapists. They felt entitled to sex, for one reason or another. Within a generation or two in many Western nations, a man couldn't be charged with raping his wife, because it was assumed that she'd automatically consent. That attitude has yet to fully disappear.

 

[CloudAtlas]

To do something against rape should not be the responsibility of the victim. Good intentions with these products, I guess, but sending a mixed message.

 

[Boris Goodenough]

To do something against rape should not be the responsibility of the victim. Good intentions with these products, I guess, but sending a mixed message.

I am curious, do self defence class advertisements also send a mixed message with regards to violence?

 

[Thaluikhain]

To do something against rape should not be the responsibility of the victim. Good intentions with these products, I guess, but sending a mixed message.

I am curious, do self defence class advertisements also send a mixed message with regards to violence?

Would that not depend on how they do it?