Rape-aXe: Is it a Good Idea?

Unfortunately, rape is a reality in many cultures and societies, but some cultures suffer from an even more preponderant proliferation of this obscene crime than others. South Africa has such a high incidence of rape that anti-rape devices are being invented, but meeting with mixed responses.

In 2000, a South African man named Jaap Haumann invented an early prototypical anti-rape device that is inserted like a tampon, but has a spring loaded feature involving a blade that is activated if a penis enters the vagina. The activated blade would actually cut off part of the intruding penis. I remember reading about this device a few years ago and although I certainly did not have any particular concern for the raping penises, I did have some concerns for the insides of female bodies. What if one of these devices malfunctioned or misfired or was accidentally activated by something less invasive than a rape? Even in cases in which the device is activated by a raping penis, what prevents it from cutting the woman, too? I for one would not feel at ease about inserting, removing, or wearing a spring-loaded, bladed entity inside my body.

In 2005, another variation of anti-rape device was designed by a South African woman named Sonette Ehlers. She was motivated to create this device due to working with a blood transfusion service, during which time she met and treated many rape victims. One of these victims remarked to Ehlers that she wished she'd had teeth down there, a remark that inspired Ehlers's thinking about her anti-rape device design. Both the remark and the device itself allude to the vagina dentata myth, a myth about women having teeth inside their vaginas, a myth which has been lurking in various cultures for many years, in one incarnation or another. Many people think that this myth at least partly derives from men's fear or distrust of female genitalia or maybe even the hidden power of women. Ironically enough, more than one version of this myth includes a male figure who earns hero status by conquering the toothed vagina and removing or destroying its teeth. Much interesting and thought provoking analysis could be applied to what is underlying the vagina dentata myth, but that's another article.

Ehlers's anti-rape device is more akin to a female condom than a tampon. Unfortunately, this means it still must be inserted into the female body, but her design seems at least a little less risky for the wearer, because it's not spring-loaded and thus not prone to misfiring. Initially called RapeX, the device was later renamed to Rape-aXe. Rape-aXe consists of a latex sheathe embedded with inward-facing barbs. The idea of how this contraption is meant to deter rape is that a penis invading the vagina would enter this sheathe, be snagged by the barbs, and then the owner of the penis would be at least temporarily debilitated by the pain, which would give the woman a chance to escape. After withdrawal, the device would stay attached to the attacker's penis and could only be removed surgically, which would alert hospital staff and police to the crime. Also, since the device lines the vaginal canal like a female condom, it would help to protect against pregnancy and transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.

Although the Rape-aXe device does seem like a better-thought out anti-rape device then the earlier model, it still raises many significant concerns. Critics have called the device vengeful, disgusting, and even medieval, to which Ehlers has responded that it's a "medieval device for a medieval deed." Personally speaking, I'd have to say that I don't have a problem with painful vengeance being enacted upon somebody who is in the midst of perpetrating a rape. So what if the device is inhumane to the rapist; he is clearly not respecting his own or his victim's humanity if he's engaged in a rape; it seems to me he's pretty much nullified his own humanity at that point in time, at least temporarily.

My concerns about the device are related to its risks and limitations regarding the victims it's supposed to help protect. These concerns are certainly not exclusive to me; others have expressed similar thoughts. I've already touched upon issues of personal safety and unease associated with internal insertion, removal, and wearing of a device that includes blades or barbs. Ehlers does claim that the Rape-aXe device cannot turn inside out, so the barbs pose no threat to the wearer. Still, it's not something I'd feel comfortable wearing inside my vagina long term.

How long and how often is a woman meant to wear such a device? Since the occurrence of a rape cannot be clearly predicted and could potentially happen at any time, either inside or outside the home, does that mean that in order to fully protect herself, a woman should be wearing an anti-rape device almost constantly? It seems like that would lead to some serious irritation, both physical and mental/emotional and couldn't it also lead to hygiene issues that might escalate into health concerns over time? Perhaps a woman would choose to wear the device only if she's going to be privy to what she considers a more high-risk situation. This leads to the question, why is it the woman's responsibility to prevent rape? Why should that onus become a burden for potential victims rather than the responsibility of potential perpetrators to change unacceptable behavior or the responsibility of a society to provide more effective education or other deterrents against such crime? Don't get me wrong, because I'm not suggesting that women (or anyone else) ought to be oblivious about their own safety or take excessive risks; I think that everyone is responsible for their own personal safety and well-being to a degree, in terms of maintaining personal awareness and taking reasonable precautions. However, I don't think that constantly having to wear a barbed latex sheathe inside her vagina qualifies as a reasonable precaution.

There are also numerous questions about how well Rape-aXe or a similar device would even work as a rape deterrent. It seems that it would really only work in the rape scenario of one man raping one woman with his penis in her vagina. Well, not every rape fits those parameters. What about oral rape or anal rape? What about gang rape? What about foreign object rape? Disturbing as it might be to think about, many other rape scenarios also exist and unfortunately, there are also such possibilities as perpetrators who are aware of anti-rape devices choosing to rape with a foreign object or insert a foreign object first to check for the presence of such a device and then rape with their penis. It has also been suggested that some rapists might be enraged by the device and then become even more violent and kill the victim.

I do think that the impetus behind the Rape-aXe device is well-meaning-and in a culture with such a distressingly high incidence of rape, maybe an option like Rape-aXe is not an entirely bad thing, because at least it's an option. Still, I can't help but think and hope that there must be better options-options that are less risky and invasive and burdensome for potential victims. What about widespread self-defense training for women or training with weapons that do not need to be worn inside the vagina? What about more education efforts directed towards potential perpetrators and swifter, harsher punishment for those who do commit the crime of rape? I don't necessarily think that Rape-aXe should be eliminated as an option, but I certainly wouldn't want it to be looked upon as my only option or my best option or my responsibility to wear if I was a woman who cared about my own personal safety. Perhaps the best rape-deterring solution would involve targeting the problem from a variety of different angles and offering a variety of different anti-rape options, including but not limited to new & improved anti-rape devices.

*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapex

http://www.antirape.co.za/index.htm

http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-search.fcgi?IncludeBlogs=2&search=anti+rape+device&limit=20