Anti-Rape underwear

[Thaluikhain]

To put it frankly: Just because a person feels intimidated doesn't mean they were raped, unless the partner knowingly intimidated them with intent to get them to do something out of fear. This argument, while argued by many to apply to sex, doesn't work with most other situations, like my kidnapping example, for, if someone follows me because they were intimidated, legal precedent holds that it doesn't count as coercion/intimidation unless I knowingly or purposefully did so.

Hmmm...murky area there. Isn't there something about the perpetrator reasonably should have known what they were doing was wrong or something?

It seems, though, that many women (certainly not all, but many) understand that while they did not want to consent, or felt intimidated, they still consented and take responsibility for that.

Also murky. I could accept that if a person didn't know they were coercing or intimidating someone into sex then there aren't a rapist (they really should have ensured enthusiastic consent, though), but if someone is consenting to something because they are intimidated or coerced, I don't see that as consent at all.

 

[Blow_Pop]

This is sad..i mean the need to advertise a product as being useful for protection. It might sound weird to say but..nothing will prevent rape in some cases. I mean you could get a chastity belt made out of bloody titanium with 15 locks and 20 chains and it wouldnt protect you from rape. It protects for a time, yes, but if some guy or girl wants to really fuck you (rapists dont really think of themselves as actually raping, its just a definition of the act that sex happens where one party said no), so when they do want to really get into your pants, they will, it might take time, it might be difficult but if they really want to they will find a way.

Not to mention, that 90%+ of rapes (at least in the West) are by friends or family members, not someone that grabs you in a back alley.

I can definitely agree with that percentage. As all of mine were friends or people I was dating and just about everyone I know who has been was people they knew.

Urgh. I'm sure they're well-intentioned, but no, I would never wear these in a million years because:

1. They're hideously impractical. As someone else said, what happens if I've had a couple of drinks and desperately need to pee?

2. If (god forbid) I ever found myself in that situation, I really wouldn't want something designed to "frustrate" my attacker in proximity to my genitals. While the whole "stranger rape at knife-point" scenario is actually pretty rare, can you imagine how ugly things would get if you add something specifically designed to piss the attacker off into the equation? Nope, do not want.

3.

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?"

This. So much.

I agree with all of your points here

Any enterprising rapist would immediately pull out a pocket knife.

And, "cut-proof" or not, you REALLY don't want a knife down there. D:

Well I don't know. ... knives are pretty exciting for some of us

I'd rather encourage someone to gain the arms and skills necessary to fight back than to solely focus on slowing down the assailant. I would find this underwear only useful if the victim is also intending on fighting back, because it should give her a few extra moments to think, plan or react.

Humans are shitbags, so prepare accordingly.

See now, there is one huge problem with this. Speaking as someone who HAS been raped, more than once, by different guys, And who knows how to fight back. Knowledge ISN'T everything. You have to be willing to hurt your attacker to use that knowledge. Not only that, you have to be aware that you are being raped and let's face it, rape education in western society is just as bad as sexual education. Most people don't know it's going on. Not only that, a lot of police officers won't take you seriously. Especially if you are a male raped by another male. Or a male raped by a female. Or a female raped by a female. Or if you are a trans person raped by a trans person. Or really any combination of those. Or a girlfriend raped by a boyfriend. And heaven help us if your rapist served/is serving in the military. ...

And then we have all the different definitions of rape. The states do NOT have to abide by the FBI's definition of

?Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.?

(taken fromhttp://m.fbi.gov/#http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/cjis-link/march-2012/ucr-program-changes-definition-of-rape) whereas my state (California) has this to say

(a)Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following circumstances:
(1)Where a person is incapable, because of a mental disorder or developmental or physical disability, of giving legal consent, and this is known or reasonably should be known to the person committing the act. Notwithstanding the existence of a conservatorship pursuant to the provisions of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Part 1 (commencing with Section 5000) of Division 5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code), the prosecuting attorney shall prove, as an element of the crime, that a mental disorder or developmental or physical disability rendered the alleged victim incapable of giving consent.
(2)Where it is accomplished against a person's will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another.
(3)Where a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused.
(4)Where a person is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act, and this is known to the accused. As used in this paragraph, "unconscious of the nature of the act" means incapable of resisting because the victim meets one of the following conditions:
(A)Was unconscious or asleep.
(B)Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant that the act occurred.
(C)Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of the essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator's fraud in fact.
(D)Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of the essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator's fraudulent representation that the sexual penetration served a professional purpose when it served no professional purpose.
(5)Where a person submits under the belief that the person committing the act is the victim's spouse, and this belief is induced by any artifice, pretense, or concealment practiced by the accused, with intent to induce the belief.
(6)Where the act is accomplished against the victim's will by threatening to retaliate in the future against the victim or any other person, and there is a reasonable possibility that the perpetrator will execute the threat. As used in this paragraph, "threatening to retaliate" means a threat to kidnap or falsely imprison, or to inflict extreme pain, serious bodily injury, or death.
(7)Where the act is accomplished against the victim's will by threatening to use the authority of a public official to incarcerate, arrest, or deport the victim or another, and the victim has a reasonable belief that the perpetrator is a public official. As used in this paragraph, "public official" means a person employed by a governmental agency who has the authority, as part of that position, to incarcerate, arrest, or deport another. The perpetrator does not actually have to be a public official.
(b)As used in this section, "duress" means a direct or implied threat of force, violence, danger, or retribution sufficient to coerce a reasonable person of ordinary susceptibilities to perform an act which otherwise would not have been performed, or acquiesce in an act to which one otherwise would not have submitted. The total circumstances, including the age of the victim, and his or her relationship to the defendant, are factors to consider in appraising the existence of duress.
(c)As used in this section, "menace" means any threat, declaration, or act which shows an intention to inflict an injury upon another.

(taken fromhttp://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/9/1/s261) which basically says, in a nutshell, that if it's your spouse, it's ok and spousal rape doesn't happen. I don't the other 49 states or our territories definitions of rape but I found both those within seconds of searching legal definition of rape + California/United states (depending on which you are taking about) So if you are interested you can find it that way.

 

[jklinders]

To put it frankly: Just because a person feels intimidated doesn't mean they were raped, unless the partner knowingly intimidated them with intent to get them to do something out of fear. This argument, while argued by many to apply to sex, doesn't work with most other situations, like my kidnapping example, for, if someone follows me because they were intimidated, legal precedent holds that it doesn't count as coercion/intimidation unless I knowingly or purposefully did so.

Hmmm...murky area there. Isn't there something about the perpetrator reasonably should have known what they were doing was wrong or something?

It seems, though, that many women (certainly not all, but many) understand that while they did not want to consent, or felt intimidated, they still consented and take responsibility for that.

Also murky. I could accept that if a person didn't know they were coercing or intimidating someone into sex then there aren't a rapist (they really should have ensured enthusiastic consent, though), but if someone is consenting to something because they are intimidated or coerced, I don't see that as consent at all.

I agree that consent is very murky and also in some circles extremely controversial. Especially so whenever alcohol or drugs are involved. It may depend on location but locally legal consent cannot be given while intoxicated. Then what arises is other lovely debates on what constitutes intoxication and next thing we know the whole topic is derailed.

Ugh, the easy topics never really interest me.

 

[Psycomantis777]

Well it's still not as good as my prototype Gunderwear(TM). The biggest issue currently is trying to stop the recoil blowing your own dirty parts off as well as theirs...

 

[Mobax]

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.

Unfortunately this is probably correct. If the rape is being conducted by total stranger, they are going to become frustrated and likely more violent by this obstacle. And the underwear can be removed, but just with more suffering likely inflicted. It is quite possible a rapist with a knife would just go to cut them off, likely resulting in cuts on the victim's legs.

The idea behind the product is commendable, but perhaps a bit short sighted. There is also a risk of false-confidence by the wearer, I would hate to see anyone negligently put themselves in more harmful situation.

 

[jklinders]

i think it could somehow be improved...
http://i.imgur.com/23nGG.gif
hmmm..

That is simultaneously hypnotizing and terrifying.

Now where is that brain bleach?

 

[AnarchistFish]

For reasons already stated, I'm not very keen on this. EMTs are going to have as much of a hard time as a rapist with this regardless of the promises. Encouraging the use of sharp objects in that area does not strike me as an attractive goal.

I'm very suspicious of the advertiser mentioning research about "frustration" not increasing the violence of an attack but completely ignoring the irrefutable evidence that most sexual assaults originate from a known (and often trusted) source.

And no, you cant "teach people not to rape", thats like saying we can teach them not to murder, or not to lie..or whatever.

yeah you can do that

there's a reason crime rates vary wildly between different areas

There are many reasons for that. population density, demographics, affluence...etc etc.

Yeah, so conditions that mean people have a lower tendency to commit crime. I.e. you can draw people away from it.

 

[DestinyCall]

I was just going to ask where you could find Anti-Rape gear for men ... but I guess we've got that covered.

 

[HannesPascal]

I agree with a lot of people here that it seems slightly better than useless at best and it might not be such a good idea to "frustrate the rapist". Also quote from the website "The garments must be very difficult for someone else to remove by either force or stealth..." how the hell do you remove underwear by stealth?

 

[jklinders]

For reasons already stated, I'm not very keen on this. EMTs are going to have as much of a hard time as a rapist with this regardless of the promises. Encouraging the use of sharp objects in that area does not strike me as an attractive goal.

I'm very suspicious of the advertiser mentioning research about "frustration" not increasing the violence of an attack but completely ignoring the irrefutable evidence that most sexual assaults originate from a known (and often trusted) source.

And no, you cant "teach people not to rape", thats like saying we can teach them not to murder, or not to lie..or whatever.

yeah you can do that

there's a reason crime rates vary wildly between different areas

There are many reasons for that. population density, demographics, affluence...etc etc.

Yeah, so conditions that mean people have a lower tendency to commit crime. I.e. you can draw people away from it.

Mitigate, not eliminate. let's face it, some people are just born wrong. Mental illness being the most obvious thing. You can't teach that out. Therefore you can't just teach it out of people. SOME people yes but not "people."

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

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?

That depends on context, I guess. With sexual assault, we have the problem that we often shift part of the responsibility on the victim, inadvertently or not, instead of the perpetrator. With other assault, not so much. So, in this context, when we talk about how those people who are at risk of sexual assault can protect themselves, we have to be careful about the implications of our words.

No, we really don't. Self defense is self defense regardless of the context.

This need to tiptoe around the possibility of maybe possibly sorta kinda almost implying that a person could have made preparations is silliness.

It's completely possible that a self defense class wouldn't help at all. If the attacker had a gun for instance. But we shouldn't let this overpowering phobia of "victim blaming" stop our society from making basic preparations.

If I go take a martial arts class, I'm not blaming myself for being a victim. I'm preparing in the same way I prepare when I put a seat-belt on. Yeah, I may roll my car and die anyway, making the seat-belt pointless, but it's still a good precaution.

snip

That's great and all, but the fact is, this is a problem right now and talking down to potential rapists isn't going to deter anyone.

Maybe, just maybe, if the entire human race goes through a complete societal change, then there might be a chance of reducing the crime and rape. However, that's a slow process.

There's no end all solution. There are simply humans who have no respect for other humans.

OT:
Seems like a pretty terrible idea to me.

For one, I don't see how it's possible to make a piece of clothing that is not only completely impenetrable to attacks, but is also the least bit comfortable to wear.

Second and more importantly, the last thing you want to do is frustrate and piss off a rapist. This sounds like something that would lead to more damage and possibly deaths.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

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.

Fifteen posts until a Naked Gun reference?

Phew, I was beginning to get worried there guys

 

[Jadedvet]

I sympathize with women who want to protect themselves but it seems by the time this product comes into to play, the situation is already out of control. A compact tazer in a pocket would be much better I think.

Also, the idea of blame or fault in the case of rape is hampered by the lack of distinction between moral fault and logical fault.

Moral fault is almost always going to be on the rapist and because of that, the rapist should be punished for the act.

Still, this is no reason to ignore logical fault. Women, especially young women often put themselves in situations that someone older and more experienced would immediately recognize as dangerous. Girls need to understand that such a logical fault can end in damage they will never recover from.

Shut up and listen to your mom.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Mitigate, not eliminate. let's face it, some people are just born wrong. Mental illness being the most obvious thing. You can't teach that out. Therefore you can't just teach it out of people. SOME people yes but not "people."

Not true. Firstly, there are treatments for mental illness.

Secondly, the mentally ill (as a whole) are less likely to commit violence, and more likely to suffer it.

People like to simply label anything they don't like as "crazy", but in reality, that's generally simple ignorance, or a refusal to acknowledge the complexities of the problem. It's also very dangerous, as it stigmatises an already demonised and vulnerable element of the population.

No, we really don't. Self defense is self defense regardless of the context.

This need to tiptoe around the possibility of maybe possibly sorta kinda almost implying that a person could have made preparations is silliness.

It's completely possible that a self defense class wouldn't help at all. If the attacker had a gun for instance. But we shouldn't let this overpowering phobia of "victim blaming" stop our society from making basic preparations.

If I go take a martial arts class, I'm not blaming myself for being a victim. I'm preparing in the same way I prepare when I put a seat-belt on. Yeah, I may roll my car and die anyway, making the seat-belt pointless, but it's still a good precaution.

Missing the point. Nobody said that self defence was a problem, it's the way that self defence is discussed, how it's offered as a solution that can be.

 

[jklinders]

Mitigate, not eliminate. let's face it, some people are just born wrong. Mental illness being the most obvious thing. You can't teach that out. Therefore you can't just teach it out of people. SOME people yes but not "people."

Not true. Firstly, there are treatments for mental illness.

Secondly, the mentally ill (as a whole) are less likely to commit violence, and more likely to suffer it.

People like to simply label anything they don't like as "crazy", but in reality, that's generally simple ignorance, or a refusal to acknowledge the complexities of the problem. It's also very dangerous, as it stigmatises an already demonised and vulnerable element of the population.

Funny how a discussion about a trite simplistic statement (see how this thread started blows up because of other simple examples being made.

For the record before I really get started I was giving an example. Not giving the be all and and all. But there is a small % of folks who are very violently mentally ill. they make the papers quite a bit, though more often than their prevalence would indicate.

Yes mental illness can be treated. But not with 100% effectiveness. I worked with a fellow who has Schizophrenia a few years back. I felt bad for him because he had 2 states. One where he was messed up from his illness or the other where he was messed up from the drugs he was taking to treat it. He was harmless, but...less than he could be under the influence of his meds. He was harmful to himself without them. I bring this up to show that I am not unaware of these issues.

But teaching behavior can only go so far which is the point I am trying to make. Focusing on one misguided but otherwise harmless example does not change that.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Also, the idea of blame or fault in the case of rape is hampered by the lack of distinction between moral fault and logical fault.

Moral fault is almost always going to be on the rapist and because of that, the rapist should be punished for the act.

Still, this is no reason to ignore logical fault. Women, especially young women often put themselves in situations that someone older and more experienced would immediately recognize as dangerous. Girls need to understand that such a logical fault can end in damage they will never recover from.

Shut up and listen to your mom.

Yeah, there's any number of reasons why blaming the victim like that is an appalling idea.

But teaching behavior can only go so far which is the point I am trying to make. Focusing on one misguided but otherwise harmless example does not change that.

I would argue that the way people carelessly equate "mentally ill" with "dangerous criminal" is far from harmless.

But I take your point.

 

[Blow_Pop]

Still, this is no reason to ignore logical fault. Women, especially young women often put themselves in situations that someone older and more experienced would immediately recognize as dangerous. Girls need to understand that such a logical fault can end in damage they will never recover from.

Shut up and listen to your mom.

Yes because women who get raped obviously have put themselves into a dangerous situation. Way to victim blame. Basically what you are saying is that any girl who gets raped by her boyfriend has put herself into a dangerous situation. And that any girl who goes out to have fun with her friends in celebration or whatever is automatically putting herself into a dangerous situation. Which is illogical. This is basically what you are implying. You might want to rethink that because I and I am sure other people resent that implication.

 

[Jadedvet]

Yes because women who get raped obviously have put themselves into a dangerous situation. Way to victim blame. Basically what you are saying is that any girl who gets raped by her boyfriend has put herself into a dangerous situation. And that any girl who goes out to have fun with her friends in celebration or whatever is automatically putting herself into a dangerous situation. Which is illogical. This is basically what you are implying. You might want to rethink that because I and I am sure other people resent that implication.

Wow.. Way to completely miss the entire point of my post.

Look at the first part of what I said. I don't think situation, in any way, excuses a rapist from the consequences. The victim has done no moral wrong and doesn't deserve any scorn from the public.

Not every rape victim can foresee and prevent the rape which is why I said often and not always. That said, pretending that the situation is never preventable is both foolish and dangerous. I'm sorry if that idea offends you.

My point is not to blame victims but to advocate a bit of common sense and education. The prevention of preventable rapes is what I'm looking for here.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The prevention of preventable rapes is what I'm looking for here.

What you are doing, however, very much is blaming rape victims.