Female Condoms, Now with teeth!

[ChemistryExperiment]

Condoms with teeth...

What are your thoughts?

[havoc175]

Great idea in theory... I read the comments though and they pointed out rapists in South Africa are careful about vaginal insertion already. So that means you'd need one in your mouth and ass hole as well. The article mentioned that women are placing devices in their vagina in South Africa (ie razors in sponges) already to ward off rapists. This would make the rapist more likely to think twice about vaginal insertion and instead go anal or oral. Also, it would be disastrous for the victim of gang rape if the first guy gets real pissed off from catching the device...

[nalgas]

Wait, CNN thinks this is news now? Everyone else reported on it a few years ago, with pictures and everything...

[Velvet Elvis]

Wouldn't they stick their finger in first anyway?

[Cuttlefish]

Wouldn't they stick their finger in first anyway?

Don't women usually have spiny vaginas?

[Katyusha]

This is way less cool than Y.T.'s dentata in Snow Crash.

I applaud the basic intent, but making your assailant really pissed off without incapacitating him sounds like a really bad idea...

[The Emperor]

This is way less cool than Y.T.'s dentata in Snow Crash.

I applaud the basic intent, but making your assailant really pissed off without incapacitating him sounds like a really bad idea...

I agree with this. So wait, basically the two people are stuck together because of the toothy vagina? Then the aggressive sex offender becomes even more angry? Is there body armor they can give her to protect her from getting beat?

[nalgas]

I kind of suspect that it doesn't have teeth on the other side to keep it attached to her, so it comes out with him...

[The Emperor]

I kind of suspect that it doesn't have teeth on the other side to keep it attached to her, so it comes out with him...

I misinterpreted the article. I figured that the teeth made it impossible for him to pull out because pulling in the opposite direction would cause very bad things, I just went back and had to read it again!

oops.

[Stickler]

:) I don't think the good doc's device is mean enough.

Yeah...I sort of wanted to design a spring-loaded device, rather like one of those apple-slicers sold for kitchen use on the inside...perhaps with spring-loaded hooked razors as well that would cause it to attach...made such that the act of forcible entry would cause it to pop forward in its' tube and shred the unwanted penis without exposing a cutting edge to it's wearer...but it wouldn't be effective at all in the case of more than one attacker, and it wouldn't keep you HIV negative, since the guy would presumably bleed all over you before pulling out with the device clamped to what was left of his mangled penis.

[OscillateWildly]

I think it's interesting that there is an area of the world where women are raped so frequently that this device is required... and no one cares. Or at least, only a few people care.

I don't know what to do. I'm no better than everyone else, perhaps a bit worse because I indulge in selfish sadness while still doing nothing while the rest of the world simply doesn't feel anything therefore does nothing.

I think in south africa if this is really so bad women need to start living in gated communes with weapons/guards or something with like, no men or only a few men who are proven non-animals, because living somewhere where you have to put sharp things inside yourself just because you might get raped is like, fucking ridiculous.

[reddog]

my thought? if it is a single attacker, then this may very well give the woman the time she needs to get away. most self defense strategies are about incapacitating your attacker for a few seconds so you can escape. this may very well prove useful for that.

against gang rape? probably not. i hate to be cynical though, but if it's a gang rape the victim is going to get beat the hell up anyway. thinking statistically, more rapes are probably committed by a single perp, so if this allows a woman time to escape, i'm all for it.

i noticed everyone is thinking about payback and retribution, but honestly it could prove to be good for self defense.

[nalgas]

i hate to be cynical

[...]

i noticed everyone is thinking about payback and retribution

Speaking of payback and retribution, if you really want to get cynical, imagine the possibilities using it against a specific person you don't like, more like an attack instead of a defense.

[Antecedent]

I've been hearing about these for a good four years, I think the idea is more important than the reality. If people are thinking about something like this they might be less eager to rape.

I imagine it doesn't stick the two people together, I imagine once it lodges in the penis it slides out (painfully). He could still kill the other person though. But afterwards he has to go to hospital and get it removed (by unsympathetic nurses) and he'll have to answer a lot of questions for the police.

All this in his mind might work as prevention.

Speaking of payback and retribution, if you really want to get cynical, imagine the possibilities using it against a specific person you don't like, more like an attack instead of a defense.

That's the first thing my ex-boyfriend* said! (That's how I know when I first heard about these, I remember the conversation)

But any time a woman goes to bed with a man she's putting herself in potential danger, why shouldn't men have to deal with that too?

* I say ex boyfriend because it makes me sound grown up, we dated for a month and I think he broke up with me because I wouldn't have sex with him, but he never said why

<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">I think it's interesting that there is an area of the world where women are raped so frequently that this device is required... and no one cares. Or at least, only a few people care.

People care, but we can't do anything.

I don't know what to do. I'm no better than everyone else, perhaps a bit worse because I indulge in selfish sadness while still doing nothing while the rest of the world simply doesn't feel anything therefore does nothing.

The rest of the world does feel bad! That's why we have police and governments and charities, to stop things like this. There are people working there all the time to stop this. Most people are just trying to live their own lives and hold themselves and their families together. Everybody cares.

But what can we do?

I think in south africa if this is really so bad women need to start living in gated communes with weapons/guards or something with like, no men or only a few men who are proven non-animals, because living somewhere where you have to put sharp things inside yourself just because you might get raped is like, fucking ridiculous.

There are gated communities, for people who can afford them.

This is a problem because there are so many poor people living in slums where they have no privacy, no protection, little law enforcement, no education etc. etc.

[nalgas]

But any time a woman goes to bed with a man she's putting herself in potential danger, why shouldn't men have to deal with that too?

I'm trying and failing to come up with any reasonable way to justify this statement. Nothing short of irrational/unhealthy fear or distrust of men even makes it make sense. Every time a woman has sex with a man, there's a risk of something trying to bite her genitalia off? And here I always thought it was vagina dentata... Sure, there are some men (and women sometimes, too) who do some bad things, but to say that all of them do/could/might is just ridiculous. It's more common in some places than others, which would make something like this more useful/practical, but even then, saying that every time any woman does something with any man she's in danger is unrealistic and kind of sad.

[Stickler]

Any time anybody has sex with anyone else they're putting themselves at a certain level of risk...for STD's at least...Condoms do make it pretty safe, spermacide plus condom even safer, but warts and herpes can go around.

And women can rape, too...it's quite unusual, and it's done not using force, but usually through threatening, manipulation, and other tactics, although occasonally drugs as well...it psychologically messes a guy up, though.

[Velvet Elvis]

But any time a woman goes to bed with a man she's putting herself in potential danger, why shouldn't men have to deal with that too?

I'm trying and failing to come up with any reasonable way to justify this statement. Nothing short of irrational/unhealthy fear or distrust of men even makes it make sense. Every time a woman has sex with a man, there's a risk of something trying to bite her genitalia off? And here I always thought it was vagina dentata... Sure, there are some men (and women sometimes, too) who do some bad things, but to say that all of them do/could/might is just ridiculous. It's more common in some places than others, which would make something like this more useful/practical, but even then, saying that every time any woman does something with any man she's in danger is unrealistic and kind of sad.

[The Emperor]

Oh my god, VE. Haha. How appropriate.

[nalgas]

Any time anybody has sex with anyone else they're putting themselves at a certain level of risk...for STD's at least...Condoms do make it pretty safe, spermacide plus condom even safer, but warts and herpes can go around.

And women can rape, too...it's quite unusual, and it's done not using force, but usually through threatening, manipulation, and other tactics, although occasonally drugs as well...it psychologically messes a guy up, though.

I did consider mentioning all that, but then I was starting to get carried away with how any time anyone does anything they're technically at risk for something or other, and it was just getting silly. Also, for the record, spermacide actually makes you less safe in a lot of situations, at least if it's nonoxynol-9, because it's rather abrasive stuff and irritates/damages the skin, making it easier for viruses and whatnot to penetrate it. The WHO actually recommends against using it, for that reason.

[Antecedent]

I think if this is a trigger for you you'll have left the thread! But waring anyway. It's not sweetness and light

But any time a woman goes to bed with a man she's putting herself in potential danger, why shouldn't men have to deal with that too?

I'm trying and failing to come up with any reasonable way to justify this statement. Nothing short of irrational/unhealthy fear or distrust of men even makes it make sense. Every time a woman has sex with a man, there's a risk of something trying to bite her genitalia off? And here I always thought it was vagina dentata... Sure, there are some men (and women sometimes, too) who do some bad things, but to say that all of them do/could/might is just ridiculous. It's more common in some places than others, which would make something like this more useful/practical, but even then, saying that every time any woman does something with any man she's in danger is unrealistic and kind of sad.

Women can rape too, and men can be raped by other men, and domestic violence exits against both sexes. I'm not trying to say that men are the enemy.

But in my opinion men already have the equivalent of protective teeth on their genitals, fists!

What was being talked about was an angry person using these condoms as a way of hurting someone they didn't like. My point is men can already do that to women. But the idea of women having that same capability? That's shocking?

Leaving irrational and unhealthy fear aside.. it's a fact that men are stronger. If she is not attacked it is because he doesn't want to attack her. If he is not attacked it is because A. She doesn't want to hurt someone else B. she would never be strong enough anyway.

Having teeth there would even everything out. Of course we'd never want to use them, just like a man would never want to use his strength to hurt a woman. But we would have the same horrible ability they have.

I'm not saying they want to, I'm just saying they are able to.

[OscillateWildly]

I find it highly unlikely a woman would wear this to get back at a man she had a problem with. Number one, it would require having sex with him, which most women wouldn't want to do assuming she was upset with this guy enough to want to do this to him. Number two, it's not a particularly effective way of attacking someone, since after the device clamps down, he is pretty much already on top of you, fully awake/alert and apt to attack back, and seeing as you are pretty much vulnerable now (being that he's probably a lot stronger and on top of you) the odds are pretty good he could attack you for serious. And, I would think, any woman with this sort of grudge against a man probably wouldn't want to risk pissing him off in close proximity like that, since it's probably likely he's abusive already and probably unbalanced himself and likely to retaliate.

This wouldn't really happen in real life, not if the woman were mentally in her right mind... although it would probably make a good movie plot (or part of a plot).

I mean I suppose it COULD happen, but then again, if you want to get someone, you're going to do it with or without this device.

Fearing a woman wearing one of these against you, is no more logical than a woman fearing a man might attack her when she goes to bed with him... both are pretty paranoid and extreme ways of thinking.

[nalgas]

OW: I never said I thought it was likely to happen or was a good way to go about it (neither of which I think is true, actually, in agreement with you for pretty much the same reasons), just that it came to mind when taking a particularly cynical view of the whole idea, as inspired by a previous post.

And Antecedent: I also didn't say that I found anything shocking or that men aren't stronger than women on average or that things like this don't (kind of sort of) do something to address that (with debatable effectiveness...I'm curious to see how it'll work out in the real world). I did specifically say that the point of view you initially expressed, mainly in that one sentence I quoted, is a bit weird/unrealistic/disappointing. The absoluteness of it makes it even a bit sexist. It is unarguably true that some women are at some risk with some men, but the way you put it originally made it sound like all men are a threat to every woman, which both weakens your argument while also being the sort of thing that some men who disrespect or even hate women use to justify their thoughts (and eventually actions). It's not like you're not mostly right and they're not mostly wrong or anything, because you are, and they are. It's just that that kind of black and white statement is kind of disingenuous and at best doesn't help. I understand that you're not trying to say that men are the enemy...but that first post pretty much said that men are the enemy. Heh.

[Antecedent]

OW: I never said I thought it was likely to happen or was a good way to go about it (neither of which I think is true, actually, in agreement with you for pretty much the same reasons), just that it came to mind when taking a particularly cynical view of the whole idea, as inspired by a previous post.

And Antecedent: I also didn't say that I found anything shocking or that men aren't stronger than women on average or that things like this don't (kind of sort of) do something to address that (with debatable effectiveness...I'm curious to see how it'll work out in the real world). I did specifically say that the point of view you initially expressed, mainly in that one sentence I quoted, is a bit weird/unrealistic/disappointing. The absoluteness of it makes it even a bit sexist. It is unarguably true that some women are at some risk with some men, but the way you put it originally made it sound like all men are a threat to every woman, which both weakens your argument while also being the sort of thing that some men who disrespect or even hate women use to justify their thoughts (and eventually actions). It's not like you're not mostly right and they're not mostly wrong or anything, because you are, and they are. It's just that that kind of black and white statement is kind of disingenuous and at best doesn't help. I understand that you're not trying to say that men are the enemy...but that first post pretty much said that men are the enemy. Heh.

I don't think that I did, I think it stated a true and undeniable fact. You read a lot into it.

Fearing a woman wearing one of these against you, is no more logical than a woman fearing a man might attack her when she goes to bed with him... both are pretty paranoid and extreme ways of thinking.

Exactly! Imagine these were behind every shop counter! Every time a man met a person in a bar or goes on a few dates and takes them home this would be in the back of his mind. That s/he is potentially some kind of lunatic sadist. Of course it would probably never happen. But it could potentially happen.Just hope and trust that they're not.

It's the same.

[crtclms]

Seriously Antecedent? Is it just that *you* would get into bed with a person, whether or not you felt certain s/he was a potential danger to you? Because I would not.

And your statement *definitely* implies that getting into bed with a partner is always a risk: nalgas "read that into it" when you used the term "always." See how that works?

I am kind of insulted that you would imply that getting into my bed with my husband automatically and "always" puts me at risk.