This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anti-rape device article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Anti-rape device. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Anti-rape device at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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?
Hoax. But discussed at BBC4: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/2005_24_tue_02.shtml --Wetman 08:13, 1 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]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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.
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.
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 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 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
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 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 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)
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)
A claim
was un-((fact))-tagged with an assertion
So, let's try this:
Certainly a negative claim. Or how about the milder
Really, people have some weird ideas about empirical logic. —SlamDiego←T 15:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
((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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
[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/
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)
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)