Talk:Anti-rape device

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Scaban2, OliviaBarron13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Criticism

Has anyone looked into whether or not there are people who look positively at this device? It doesn't seem quite neutral as it has such a huge article on criticism and nothing about people who are for it. im all for it,is there a photo?

Everyone can agree that rape is a horrid and cowardly thing, but these devices are invented by idiots who fundementally misunderstands the act of rape as purely sexual. The fact of it is, rape is as much about violence as it is about sex. German women in WWII were the victim of soldiers who often were unable to finish the act due to alcohol, when this happened the encounters ends much more violently than other cases of rape during the chaos of that war.

To precent the risk of infection, these devices need to be washed and stored properly before and after every use, something that might be difficult for Rape-axe's target consumers: poor rural african woman.

As for the claim that the device cannot be removed without surgery is doubtful and the claim that the perp will go to a hospital after is moronic. The device is meant to trap an erect penis, which may not trap the organ as well after it inevitably go flaccid and latex is not a difficult material cut or stretch.

Hoax?

Hoax. But discussed at BBC4: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/2005_24_tue_02.shtml --Wetman 08:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Should this article, then, be deleted, along with all references? --Dpr 06:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense that such a product would get serious development anyways, since it's pretty obvious that it would encourage all would-be rapists to do some "testing" with a hunk of wood or something. I'd say it's a hoax. But see: [1]

I don't think it's a hoax, but you're right, it probably won't work. But I have to wonder - will some women not take it off during spontaneous sex? I mean, if people are so bad about putting condoms ON before sex, then...24.64.223.203 09:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

No its not a hoax, instead of directing you to other articles just type "rapex" in google image search and you will find (among other things) many images of the device being displayed by its inventor --BerserkerBen 01:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Just because you can Google an image of it doesn't mean it's not a hoax. As far as I have been able to determine, you cannot actually purchase one anywhere.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This thing is definitely a hoax. As Shantavira said, you can buy it nowhere. --02:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.160.70.40 (talk)

You can buy it nowhere maybe because it's sold only in South Africa, where it was invented. Just because you can't buy it near where you live doesn't mean it's a hoax. Besides, if it's a hoax then this site [2] is the best hoax site I've ever seen.--187.22.80.204 (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Mechanism of action

How does it work? I cannot find any detailed descriptions on its mechanism of action. It does not seem to be a spring loaded device like in the novel Snow_Crash, based on what I can see from the images (like this: http://digilander.libero.it/quicasanacci/rapex.jpg ) its simply a female condom with several rows of hinged barbs. I would guess that when the rapist sticks his eer “member” in the barbs are pushed up without being noticed but when he retracts the barbs are pulled down into him, sort of like a Chinese finger trap, but with barbs and not on a finger, the more he retracts (and faster) the deeper the barbs are impaled, the barbs seem hocked at the end in one picture so once their in they cannot come out. Well that’s from what I can tell if anyone has a better theory or actual account please tell. On a personal note this has got to be one of the most hilariously scary inventions I have ever seen, I can understand why people would think its a hoax --BerserkerBen 01:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You got the barb part right but finger traps are woven this thing is not. The barbs seem to be rows of hardened pastic and the design is simplistic. I tagged the surgical removal part because it seems just plain unlikely considering its made of latex and would constrict when erect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.242.4 (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

From the text, it simply appears that an unwelcome visitor will encounter an unexpected myriad of microperforations in his most sensitive of areas. And I agree completely on the scariness. --Kizor 20:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

From the pictures the barbs do not look micro at all, maybe ~1cm long!--BerserkerBen 02:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

As far as I have read, the thing can only be removed from the "member" by surgery.....81.201.224.13 13:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • Will it work?

Ive read about it in German Online Magazin "Spiegel", so i dont think its a hoax. What i've wondered about, wouldnt it encourage to rape orally and anally?? Women cant have something like that in their other openings, so i think if such a device would be out, it could backfire.

Actually it can be used in the anal region. But not the mouth obviously. Btw, the idea is by far the worst idea I've heard in a while. When a rapist finds this thing on his penix, he'll take it out his anger on the girl he just raped. It also doesn't stop the rape at all, it just screws the guy over after the damage has been done. -Lengis

Uhm...the way this thing looks...I seriously doubt anybody would be able to take his anger out on anybody with this thing in his penis. He would have to be VERY pain tolerant to be even able to walk....81.201.224.13 13:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Come on! It would ach at most, a couple of dozen cm long spikes lodge in the skin of the rapist’s ahh "violator" could not hurt that bad. Maybe a spining corkscrew like device that rapidly chewing away at it would be painful enough to cause immediate disabling of the rapist (and hopefully kill him from blood loss within minutes) --BerserkerBen 21:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

If this is not a hoax, and the marketing of the product effectively convinces many women to use this device, it would then become standard practice for potential rapists to probe victims violently with various objects (to ensure that the device is removed) before proceeding with his own penis. Jimworm 11:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

edit

Removed redundant and needless links 68.239.206.10 21:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

So, who thought it was OK to link this to a comic book about a condom that bites off penises? This may or may not work, but it's clearly a serious attempt to deal with a serious problem.

I recently got a warning for my supposedly vanadalous behaviour on wiki for trying to delete the link to killer condom. I thought that was what this was all about. Would somebody mind posting here how I can contribute to this article by deleting an unnecesery (and, let's face it, offensive) link without wiki threatening to kick me off? -C

Well sign up a account that way messages for a general ip address will not be given to you. --BerserkerBen 14:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

This article seems to favor the idea that the manufacture and/ or use of this condom is not a positive idea. It includes negative criticism of the device (that it may be ineffective, harmful to potential victims, and myth based) but not the opposing [read: positive] view.

The article is also factually incorrect in implying that the victim who inspired Ehlers referenced the vagina dentata myth. She merely indicated that she "wished she had teeth down there." For instance, I'm not referencing the bible if I say "I wish I could come back from the dead." While a similar thing did occur in the story, it was not specifically referenced by anyone. This inference seems geared at implying that Ehlers was inspired by fairy tale rather than science or compassion, making her idea seem less credible.

Lastly, the article references (somewhat randomly) the Killer Condom comic/ movie which doesn't seem to serve much purpose other than to further attack the credibility of this idea.

The vagina dentata concept, then? --Kizor 04:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel that the POV of this article is neutral. It mentions both criticisms and arguments for the device. Pygmypony 21:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well resurrection from the dead is not excusive to the bible but the idea of having teeth in the vaginal is EXCLUSIVELY referring to vigina dentata. Pretty sure, the crticism here is not covered fully enough.

"Rape-ridden South Africa"

I removed the text "rape ridden". It's unfair to characterise South Africa as rape-ridden; does it have a higher level of rape than its neighbours?

yes it is.

It has one of the highest rates of rape in the world, if not the highest. Bartleby (talk) 01:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Highest in the world. Their problem is pretty much the whole point of the device, and also the cause of most of the criticism (women are being forced to adapt to a constant threat of rape while the rapists go unpunished). Apparently some people editing this article aren't really following along... I tried to make this more clear. — Omegatron 00:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

FDA Approval?

It will be interesting to see what the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does with this device. The standard is that it has to be "safe and effective." Does anyone have any idea how hard clinical trials are going to be?,no pun intended. The inventor says on her website that it has been "tested." Has anyone seen any published research yet? Or is all of this a huge HOAX? One has to wonder. T.E. Goodwin 08:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've Been Following This Closely Since it's Announcement Last Year

I just put some statistics from Human Watch South Africa on the page. Granted they are from 1995 but they adequately portray South Africa as a country that has a high incidence of rape, relative to the rest of the world.

Also, the invention is real, has a trademark, which I also included, and it's own website which is all on the page now.

I have asked to upload an image of the device and am waiting for approval.

As far as effectiveness, there are people on both sides as well as ones who don't really know.

It has never been tested on a real man due to lack of research subjects and ethical reasons.

As a woman and feminist, I have my own ideas about it but I think it would be best to allow me to finish my revisions, as I have many, and I will deal with the pros of the device. I have made it clear that the media response was negative in general but there are other groups who DO stand behind the invention. OneWomanArmy923

If the hype is true then surely by now a rapist has been ... 'got' with one of these. That will be the real test, what happens when someone is. Also whether they are actually safe to have in. Does the lack of nerve endings in the vaginal wall mean that a broken one would have to be pulled out along with a chunk of flesh before the wearer realised it had embedded into her instead?

81.178.231.100 18:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV!

This article is written from a remarkably biased perspective. For example, it makes no mention of how the fact that a visible deterrent is absent is intrinsically linked to the fact that the existence of these condoms provides protection to women who don't have them in place, since they cannot be seen to not have them in place. —SlamDiego 02:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's a point because if someone knows about this and is scared he will just test it.

I think it's a very dangerous device because it encourages women to not defend themselves, maybe even not saying "no" and rely on this easily avoided trap. Also it really is a 100% revenge tool, like "you rape me, i take you with me" which is a very babaric mindset to me indeed.

You don't know what barbarism is then. In any event, if there are counter arguments to the deterrence effect, produced other than as original research or theorizing by a Wikipedian, then they too should be included in the article. —SlamDiego_←T 22:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Rape is the barbarism. If anything this article is POV towards the idea that this invention is in someway bad or wrong. --Krsont 14:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup. —SlamDiego_←T 04:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Does it do anything?

I have to wonder if it's effective because in order for it to work, the woman has to be raped first... Seems counter productive to me. Why not work on education, outreach and support? Dave8904 19:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The most likely answer to this question might be that preventing rape is usually preferable to post-rape "outreach" and "support". ReformedXtian 16:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No, a woman does 'not have to be raped for it to be effective. It functions as a deterrent against at least some rapes, so long as would-be rapists know that some women have one of these in them. Meanwhile, education, outreach, and singing “Kumbaya” won't do much of anything to prevent rape. —SlamDiego 16:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

look slamdiego you idiot, if a woman can take out the device or insert the device that means repeat rapists who know about the device can take it out too and also it's not like anal rape doesn't occur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.242.4 (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

No part of your argument here is much better than the insult with which it begins. Yes, some rapists will check for the device, but that checking itself slows and complicates the process of rape. Yes, anal rape does occur, as does oral rape; so does hijacking. This device is meant to deal with one sort of crime and with one sort of criminal; not with every crime nor with every sort of criminal. There is over-lap amongst these categories (hijackers are sometimes rapists), but that doesn't negate the point.

BTW, there's nice evidence that 131.104.242.4 is a sock- or meat-puppet of Dave8904. —SlamDiego_←T 21:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Citations? Anyone?

The whole "criticisms" article reeks of original research ... There are no citations for paragraphs one, two, or four. And the language there sucks: "which adds to criticisms ...", "Some have also expressed concern ...", "Some contend that ..."

Also, the line "Necessary for this scenario is the premise that women have a predilection towards using consensual sex for physical revenge," is factually incorrect, in addition to being OR. (After all, not all women need a "predilection" towards sex as revenge for this to happen, just one woman; and she doesn't even need a "predilection" - just to get the idea at some point.

For the record, I don't think that the criticisms are necessarily wrong - I just don't think this article is very encyclopedic. Maxvip 13:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

verifiability

This alleged product was originally announced two years ago. Since then, it keeps getting back into the news every few months, based entirely on (a) quotes from Sonette Ehlers and (b) other people's opinions in favor of or against the idea. I've seen no news story that was sourced to anything other than statements by Ehlers. She has been quoted repeatedly in 2006 and 2007 as saying the product is about to hit the shelves "next week" or "next month" (the official website still says it'll be on the market in "late 2006"), but there's no evidence that the Rapex is any closer to being a reality now than it ever was. Call it hoax or vaporware or what you will, but both the invention and the "controversy" seem to be entirely media phenomena at this point.

So it's still a good subject for an article, but all we can reliably say about it is (a) someone has been talking about making this, (b) the story was widely reported, (c) several people expressed opinions about it. If that changes at some point, then the article can be expanded.

And I don't think it's a good practice to cite multiple news stories that all basically provide the same information from the same person. ←Hob 23:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Dixon, Robyn. "Controversy in South Africa over device to snare rapists", The Sydney Morning Herald, September 2, 2005. Retrieved on August 10, 2007. With quotes from the inventor, Ms Ehlers and an anti-rape activist, Charlene Smith. Why isn't there a date on that Sydney Morning Herald article? Well, the link is to the smh website, but says it was in the Los Angeles Times, written by Robyn Dixon in Johannesburg in 2005. With quotes from the inventor, Ms Ehlers and an anti-rape activist, Charlene Smith.
• Clayton, Jonathan. "Anti-rape device must be banned, say women", Times Online, June 8, 2005. Retrieved on August 10, 2007. Ah! Times Online, now we're talking. Actually, someone else is talking, Ms Ehlers again. Not to Times Online, but (supposedly) to the Johannesburg Star, written by Jonathan Clayton in Johannesburg in 2005. With quotes from the inventor, Ms Ehlers and an anti-rape activist, Charlene Smith.

What other sources are given?

• "Killer tampon" to give rapists the chop. Retrieved on November 1, 2007. It's a blog, not a reliable source.
• DedeCms. March 24, 2007. Anti-rape Device to Hit the Market. Retrieved on May 31, 2007. It's a blog, not a reliable source.
• Rape Trap Like Snow Crash 'Dentata'. Technovelgy.com. Retrieved on August 10, 2007. It's a blog, not a reliable source.
• Neva Chonin. "Vagina Dentata", San Francisco Chronicle, June 12, 2005. Retrieved on August 10, 2007. Yeah, it's in the San Francisco Chronicle. In the Entertainment section. Take a look at it, then read WP:RS. Guess what?
• Five in-line links to rapestop.net. That's not a source, that's spam.

Mdbrownmsw 04:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Illogic

A claim

No evidence has been presented that rapists in South Africa have started carrying such diagnostic vaginal stimulators.

was un-{{fact}}-tagged with an assertion

Citation is NOT needed on a negative claim.

So, let's try this:

John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama do not wash their hands after using the toilet.

Certainly a negative claim. Or how about the milder

No evidence has been presented that John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama wash their hands after using the toilet.

Really, people have some weird ideas about empirical logic. —SlamDiego_←T 15:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

To put goose and gander on an even footing (no doubt a high priority here), I also deleted the speculation that objects would be used, because this is not to be found in the source cited but only in the forum comments responding to it. It's not that I'm not skeptical (see my question above) but this is just not verifiable information, and a "dildo" seems like the last thing a rapist is likely to be carrying. Wnt (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

RapeX vs. RapeaXe

There are two different web sites - one for RapeX (tm) and one for "RapeaXe" with mention that the name was changed to avoid trademark problems in Europe. But both sites show pictures of what appears to be exactly the same device! There may be something odd going on here. Wnt (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

And you can't purchase one from either site, so there is still no evidence that these things exist except in a promotional graphic. It looks like it's a large and rigid device so I imagine it would be very uncomfortable for the wearer as well as the intended victim. A neat hoax.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hoax tag

I am removing the hoax tag. Yes, the device might be a hoax. However, the article is not.

Wikipedia reflects the content of reliable sources. This article is well sourced and the content of the article is reasonably close to what the sources say. There are likely articles that accurately reflect the content of reliable sources that have been duped by a hoax. That is not what the tag is for.

The tag is for cases where Wikipedia is being hoaxed: reporting on a subject that does not exist and is not reported as existing in reliable sources. The best we can do is make sure that the article documents what the sources say, including any supposed introduction dates that have been missed, etc.

If reliable sources say it exists, as far as wikipedia is concerned, it exists. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Reminder

The purpose of Wikipedia article talk pages is not to express opinions or otherwise chat about the subject of the article, but to discuss how the article should be written, observing guidelines on neutrality, on use of “reliable sources” and avoidance of “original research”, and on “notability”.

On using the German-language Wikipedia as a “reliable source”

Wikipedia is not a “reliable source”. If we allowed Wikipedia to be treated as such ([3] [4]), then fictions could be kited by creating a group of mutually supporting edits across articles. —SlamDiego_←T 20:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

2010 ref

For those building this page, here is a 2010 article: "South African Doctor Invents Female Condoms with 'Teeth' to Fight Rape," by Faith Karimi, CNN, June 20, 2010 --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Why does this "news" story re-emerge every couple of years? This was first announced back in 2005, but the news media keep reporting it periodically as if it were new. Reminds me of the recent "controversy" over this. Someone at CNN sure is obsessed with manufacturing rape stories. Xenophobic, too - South Africa and Japan are portrayed as some kind of world rape capitals. Personally I'd be wary of using that source when more reliable ones exist. --86.149.68.243 (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Hframe, 23 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} You should include a picture of this device. You will find one here: http://io9.com/5568455/vagina-dentata-condom-distributed-at-the-world-cup

Thanks Hframe (talk) 11:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

 Not done - The above picture is interesting, but is copyrighted, and not published with a use license (CC, GFDL) which is compatible with Wikipedia for uploading on Commons. It also cannot be used under fair use, because it does not fall under one of Wikipedia's fair use categories, for uploading to the English Wikipedia. This is not meant to discourage - if use permission is obtained from the copyright holder, and verified with OTRS, such an image would certainly brighten the article. See WP:Images and WP:Uploading images and WP:Requesting copyright permission for more information about getting permission to use copyrighted images. Or if you take a photo of the device yourself and release it under CC or GFDL, that can be uploaded to Commons. That is, if it's not a hoax. --Lexein (talk) 03:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

EU warning system is also called RAPEX

The only part of the article that sounded like bullshit to me was "Initially called RapeX, the name was changed in 2006 upon discovering that RAPEX is also an EU warning system against dangerous goods on the market." They actually call their warning by that name though! [5] Dream Focus 16:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Reversal usage

Wouldnt this device also be applicable by man hating women with thoughts of revenge? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.111.46 (talk) 13:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess it could...but we wouldn't limit the availability of knives or poisons, or any number of things/devices (not that that's what you're implying should happen), just because they could be used with cruel intent.Codenamemary (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Still waiting...

It doesn't look as if this product will ever be anything more than a failed invention, languishing in development hell right next to the radio-controlled kettle: the websites in the "external links" section are both currently unavailable (which I've tagged) and as Mdbrownmsw pointed out above (over three and a half years ago), a Google search reveals nothing except the above-mentioned self-publicising interviews and advertorials initiated by Ehlers. My recent edit reflects this ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Good edit. Worded quite nicely to explain the situation. I wonder if the patent office's website even has this alleged invention in it. Its either a total hoax, or something unreasonable, since you couldn't legally use it even if it did exist. Dream Focus 15:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit Proposal

Should maybe say something in the criticism section about the following idea: With this product available, women would be able to seek out cruel vengeance on ex boyfriends/spouses. i.e. I a man cheats on his girlfriend/wife, she could then use this devise, secretly to get even with him. He then would be blamed for rape, when in fact he did not rape her. Not to mention his member would be destroyed...of course maybe he deserved the pain for cheating, but not the blamed rape, which could get him life in prison for merely cheating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilangus (talk • contribs) 19:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Friendly Suggestions

When referring to the chastity belts, try to provide a more detailed summary of its history and connection to the Anti-rape device. It would be helpful to provide readers with an image in order to gain a better understanding of the device and its appearance. In order to have a balance between negative and positive information on this topic, I suggest providing a list of pros and cons of the Anti-rape device and examples from other authors, peer-review journal articles or from newspaper articles. Nmunoz26 (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Additions to this page

Hello, I am a student at LSU in a women's gender study and I am working on a project that involves me to add more information to an article. I would like to add more information to this topic. Scaban2 (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality and language issues

The section on DrinkSavvy technology should be edited to get rid of the second person/"you" language and improve neutrality. It might also be helpful to expand this section, as this technology has expanded to include other DrinkSavvy-type items, such as the widely reported nail polish that uses the same color-change technology. In a separate issue, the final sentence of the introduction ("Throughout the history of rape...") seems very overgeneralized and out-of-place, given the article. That sentence should probably either be removed entirely or expanded into a separate section explaining the history of rape prevention methods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:940:C200:3437:C868:8517:B1BA:3AE3 (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Misspelling.

I don't know if it was intentional, but I noticed the word "victem" partway in the page. Did you mean victim? I'd change it, but the page is protected.

Thanks. Fixed it. AIRcorn (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

interesting facts about product creation

[Sonnet Ehler] "sold her car and house to mass-produce the dick-chewing device" (rape-axe) -- http://hplusmagazine.com/2011/03/09/vagina-dentata-and-the-annihilation-of-rape/

Remove DrinkSavvy?

I'm not sure if we could call somebody's idea not backed by actual product "a device". Their murky explanations points that they wanted to do something like that, but it turned out impossible, at least for them. There's no such product, so it shouldn't be here. If it's not enough - they are gone with cash. So it's more like scam or unrealistic idea - again a reason to remove misleading section. I know it's a nice idea, but quantum field changing minds of rapists is even nicer - but not quite real or scientific. 89.69.127.250 (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Rape-aXe

The Rape-aXe is a copy and paste from the marketing/gofundme. Massive claims that it'll stop STDs and pregnancy that are just claims made by the inventor. This thing has never been made and no evidence to back up the claims, yet we're copying them here as facts. 68.204.205.121 (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)