September 1, 2005 11:58 AM

photo: REUTERS

A South African woman Sonette Ehlers has invented an anti-rape female condom. How it works:

  1. woman inserts condom prior to going out
  2. if she is so unlucky as to be sexually assaulted, the condom has *barbs* inside it to sink into the attacker’s penis
  3. this will cause him considerable pain (shit yeah!) and will distract him enough for the woman to “extract” herself and escape
  4. the condom is nigh on impossible for the attacker to remove it himself and thus he will have to go to a doctor or hospital, therefore alerting the authorities

Well that’s the theory, but a concerned comment from an anti-rape activist there:

“If a victim is wearing such a device it may enrage the attacker further and possibly result in more harm being caused,” said Sam Waterhouse, advocacy co-ordinator for Rape Crisis.

Hmmm, fair point.

Anti-rape condom unveiled – World – smh.com.au

18 thoughts on “Ouch!

  1. ~*Starryluvly*~

    It’s a good idea, but there are inherent problems. One being the possibility for more harm being inflicted, as mentioned. Some others:

    1. imagine having to put it on every time you go out. I think feminists should argue that women shouldn’t have to be made the ones to bear the inconvenience for sexual predators.

    2. How much do these condoms cost?

    3. How do you spread the message about the existence of these condoms far enough so that men will immediately assume that a woman might be wearing one should he think that she’s an easy sexual target?

    4. Will women neccessarily want to put these on? Especially in instances where the attacker is known. For example, if your brother’s friend repeatedly rapes you – would you put the condom on just so he gets caught? What about marital rape?

  2. mooiness

    For the first lot of comments:

    1. True – but nasty men will be nasty men and rapists will be rapists. No amount of “education” would eradicate an individual’s crazed sexual tendencies, and how would you know which man will be a rapist? (as per your point #4) So women unfortunately have to “arm” themselves so to speak.

    2. If it costs only slightly more than regular condoms and can presumably be reused, then it’s a small price to pay for the more violent parts of South Africa.

    3. Advertise advertise advertise. Bombard the airwaves till every male would naturally assume a large percentage of women are wearing one and they are playing Russian Roulette with their penises. 🙂

    4. Arguably the condoms won’t prevent cases like these – it’s more for random attacks.

    Second comment: as in, the girl says no at the very last minute? Ok the condoms won’t help here either. And call me a MCP, not that I condone forceful sex but if a girl leads a guy on like that, then she’s inviting trouble onto herself.

  3. mooiness

    lexus: that’s the whole idea.

    ryu: rape *is* sexual penetration so it will stop the rapist in his tracks, but yes it would not prevent sexual assaults. And pranks and malicious misuse of the condom may definitely occur.

  4. ryu_10_3

    I don’t think it stops rapers at all. to get the barbs attached to the attacker’s penis there would have to be some form of penetration. hence rape. you can’t get half raped.
    if you warn the attacker then chances are they would beat you up, get you to take it out and rape you anyway.

  5. mooiness

    miss l: yeah better prepared than sorry – the condom is a very drastic measure but South Africa does have a high rate of violent crime and HIV infections. That’s probably the impetus behind the woman’s idea.

    jjj: Erm well technically for the rapist to sustain an injury *he* would have had to attacked her first – so it’s self-defense. 🙂

  6. ~*Starryluvly*~

    About the cost thing, bear in mind that a good portion of africa is still considered developing. Would women really be able to spend that money on condoms instead of food to survive?

    Oh and I thought about something else. So men can’t penetrate the woman because of the condom in there… but there’s always the back door.How…? :S

  7. CW

    Have read this post, and the comments, a couple of times, and each time, the only words that come to mind (my mind) are exclamations (not really words):





  8. blinkymummy

    This is really bizarre.
    I think it works best for rapists who are known to the victim.

    You know… the ‘uncle’, the ‘stepfather’, the ‘father’, the ‘brother’ etc.

    For women on the streets, it’s best they wear a t-shirt that says ‘I’m wearing the dick trap. Please don’t tempt fate.’ or something like that.

  9. mooiness

    cherryripe: yes it’s gruesome but that’s the whole idea. There’s no way the guy can wiggle his way out of it. Bad pun I know. 😛

    BM: You think so? A lot of contingencies I think: a “familiar” guy may suss out if you are wearing one or not and proceed accordingly while a random stranger have no chance to do that. As for wearing the t-shirt: the attacker may just force you to remove it (knife, gun etc.) if he knows in advance? Best to not advertise the fact that you are wearing one I think. Then again the whole point would be moot when every rapist would then henceforth force the girl to say if she’s wearing one or not….but I guess anything that slows down an attacker is a good thing.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *