Monday, June 21, 2010

The anti-rape condom is back.

A while ago, BobS asked a really good question of the anti-gun folks:

What level of violence is acceptable when fighting back against a criminal intent on harming me or mine?

The apparent answer?  A condom which "features jagged rows of teeth-like hooks that latch onto an attacker's penis upon penetration."

Let me tell ya, my leftist Facebook sisters are all over this sucker.  It does have a certain poetic justice to it, doesn't it?  Guy rapes you, the hooks on the condom pre-inserted in your vagina latch on to his penis and it cannot be removed without the assistance of a doctor.  "It hurts, he cannot pee and walk when it's on," according to the female doctor who invented it, and "if he tries to remove it, it will clasp tighter." 

It's no coincidence that this is a South African invention.  I've mentioned their problems with rape before.  This device is nothing new; I recall first hearing about it a couple of years ago, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if it predates that.

So, what's the problem?

There are two I can think of offhand:

1) For this device to work, the violation must take place.  If you have a barbed insert in your vagina, in order for a man's penis to be trapped in it, his penis has to enter your vagina.  This device does NOT prevent rape.  It's not reasonable or realistic to believe that this will act as a deterrent in a country where three quarters of the women will be raped over the course of their lives, where infants are being raped because of the false belief that having sex with a virgin will cure AIDS.  This device is yet further evidence of the typical leftist belief that it is immoral to prevent yourself from being raped.  I'm betting even a "puny" .22 round in center body mass would be at least as painful as a barbed condom, and the trail of blood would lead police to your attacker (assuming, of course, that you weren't able to merely show them a body).  But guns are bad news 'cause they can kill people.  That this is sorta the point seems to pass them by. 

2) This also assumes that rape is not a violent crime.  Should your attacker stick his dick inside you and find it trapped in this device, he's going to scream and run for a doctor.  And not beat the living fuck out of you/kill you for hurting him first.  C'mon, folks, there are a lot of female murder victims out there who were raped first.  There are a lot of male killers who have used the excuse that they "just got carried away"; they didn't really mean to do it.  Somehow I don't think that "Well, at least my murderer's dick hurts" would really console anyone in the afterlife.  But maybe I really don't understand leftist women.


BobG said...

Both are valid points. As far as I'm concerned, lethal force is more than justified to prevent rape.
Though I wouldn't call a 22 a strong self-defense weapon, it is perfectly capable of defending against a rapist. A guarantee that couple of 22 rounds in the stomach or face will make him lose his erection and "spoil his mood".

Bob S. said...


Excellent post. You bring up another question (which I'll probably explore in a post); what level of violence has to be done to you before you should start fighting back?

It seems the antis feel/believe that fighting back is unacceptable unless violence is being done.

I don't understand this, does it mean I have to let them rob me of my grocery money or my life saving prescription drugs as long as they don't hit me?

Does it mean if the rapist is polite and doesn't smack a woman around, she has to passively be raped?

As you say, rape is a violent act so where is the line?

Personally, I believe that protectionary violence is acceptable before any predatory violence is done to you.

I don't have to wait for the robber to shoot me before I shot him. To insist otherwise is the sign of a deranged mind.

Thanks greatly for the link and spreading the question. I really want many people to think about such questions -- tends to ruin the anti gun right arguments.

TOTWTYTR said...

As BobG says, both are valid points.

Oh, and a .22 behind the ear will do a lot to cool a mans ardor without making the same mess that a .38 or 9mm would.

The problem there is that the potential victim must allow the attacker to get way closer than they should.

A 9mm or .38, or better several of them in the chest from 10 or so feet away will also cool a mans ardor quite well.

Putting a couple into what Law Dog calls "Wedding Tackle" might be a bit over the top, but it would also make a would be rapist think about other things.