The Instigator
mostlogical
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Euphemia
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Anti-Rape Devices should be made illegal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/5/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 803 times Debate No: 77297
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

mostlogical

Pro

The first anti-rape device was the chasisity belt in the 15th century, but here is a list of more modern devices

http://www.oddee.com...


I will argue why anti-rape devices should be made illegal, while my opponent (Con) will argue why they should be legal


Good luck Con!









Euphemia

Con

Based off of Pro"s R1, I"m guessing Round 1 is for acceptance. The BOP is on Pro"s shoulders, and I, of course, will be arguing against the banning of Anti-Rape devices. I look forward to seeing Pro"s case!
Debate Round No. 1
mostlogical

Pro

No "product" can prevent women feeling violated. Women just need to stop blaming men and take some responsibility. Products such as anti-rape nail polish, anti-rape tampons, anti-rape tights, anti-rape belts, anti-rape whistles etc suggest the situation for women is hopeless and they encourage women to hate and disrespect men making it more difficult for women to be responsible.

It is also possible for women to gain a false sense of security, and put theirself or others in danger by not taking adequate responsibility e.g. they may believe they are safe walking home at night on their own wearing hardly anything because they have a special whistle with the words "anti-rape" written on it which apparently is better than shouting 'HELP'. However I doubt people would rush to investigate loud whistling or even burgular alarm noises, but I do believe they would investigate when someone shouts for help. Wearing anti-rape condoms might help women feel safe too, but the truth is when a rapist removes the device using his hands or a dildo he will be very angry, and rape will turn into muder. Companies should not mis-sell such products through fear. People will turn to these products instead of seeking help, and may end up dead.

Here's a hyperthetical situation to consider, a woman (could be a jealous ex) flirts with a man at a bar, she accidentally or purposely forgets she is wearing an anti-rape condom (RapeEx). He buys her a drink, gets to know her, has her consent but when he penetrates her he rolls over in pain, and she tells everyone he raped her. The innocent man goes to jail for a very long time.

Only 10% of rapes are carried out by strangers, meaning 90% of the time the woman knows who raped her [1]. So why do you need a device like RapeEx to catch rapists by forcing men to see a doctor so it can be safely removed? And wouldn't more innocent men be falsely accused of being rapists and suffer unnecessarily?

The purpose of this invention and those that brand men with tattoos and cause pain is clearly revenge. It's disgusting. I have read the idea came to a woman who saw a patient with his penis trapped in his trouser zip, rather than think of an invention to prevent this from happening she came up with RapeEx.

If there is one thing women should learn then it is this; the law should not be taken into your own hands. Ignoring this advice increases your risk of death and injury. The police are there for a reason!

Also, two wrongs don't make a right.




sources

[1] http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk...







Euphemia

Con

The points you bring up in your first paragraph suggest that only women are raped and that anti-rape devices encourage women to "hate and disrespect men." How is this the case? Having protection against rape does not encourage women to hate men, and you are focusing on only one part of a big picture. Also, I have no idea what the victim has to be responsible for, as someone has just tried to rape them.

Also, how does a false sense of security contribute to anti-rape devices needing to be banned? People feel secure in their locked house at night, or while around many people that they know well. Does that mean we should ban the locking of doors and isolate everyone? Furthermore, a scream and a whistle is better than just a scream, especially in a dark alley or somewhat enclosed space. The whistle could perhaps sound a bit like a car alarm, and just screaming could end in death, like just using the rape whistle would.

I don"t understand how the rapist would be able to remove the devices quick enough to kill the victim either. The rapist would be in excruciating pain, which gives the victim a bit of time to run and shout for help where they can be heard. I highly doubt the victim wouldn't try and get help after they have been assaulted.

The hypothetical situation is possible, yes, but all devices used to protect against anything could end in a situation like that.

These devices WILL deter people from attempting to assault both genders. You are forgetting that not only women are raped, and that not all anti-rape devices are or will be for women. You are also forgetting the fact that the victims of rape often refuse to report it to the police, for fear that the rapist will attack them further or ruin their lives more than they already have.

The police are not always there when you need them and a staggeringly small percentage of rapists are arrested, prosecuted, and sent to prison. 68 out of 100 rapes are unreported, which means the police can not do anything at all about them. Denying someone the right to protect themselves is a crime in itself, thank you very much.
Debate Round No. 2
mostlogical

Pro

Far more women are sexually abused, and thus more anti-rape products are aimed at them which is why I have focused on those. There are anti-rape devices for men too and these should also be illegal, see an example of a device for men below

http://s153139690.websitehome.co.uk...

I strongly doubt many men would pay £400 for an anti-rape device, or want to insert and leave one up their butt even if a friend gave them one, unless of course they have been raped as a child, and it's clear this device is targeted at such people. In case you don't know who Jimmy Savile is, he is a paedaphile who raped many young girls and boys [1]. I'm sure the people who sell these products think they are helping people, but the truth is they are exploiting people's fears to sell a useless product which can only do more harm than good e.g. they keep victims of rape in a state of constant fear. Although they don't need to be afraid of being penetrated by another man against their will when wearing such devices, it doesn't stop them from being attacked, and as I have said in R1 it is not solely penetration that causes trauma. These devices are likely to prevent victims of rape speaking out or seeking help, because they might believe it was their own fault for not protecting theirself with an anti-rape device.

Anti-rape devices encourage feminsts (man haters) to hate men more, and justify their hatred. If women feel they have to wear them day in day out - something nobody should have to do, then they will obviously hate and disrespect men for that, and never strive to be happy. So rape will continue to be common and expected.

Women are largely irresponsible and express their fury when they see posters giving sensible advice, see below

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Women shouldn't be trying to take the law into their own hands yet they will because wearing anti-rape devices are going to make them feel safe and take unecessary risks. It is much better to prevent rapes than increase them!


Rapists could overpower a woman, then remove the anti-rape condom very easily by feeling inside her vagina with their hand or by inserting a dildo so the condom's teeth latch onto that before penetrating her with their penis and proceeding to kill her for wearing the device. I think rapists would quickly learn to be careful if they weren't before! What if she is gang raped? If one of their group is in excruciating pain due to a device, and wants revenge there is more chance she will die. There might be some situations where it would give a woman a better chance to get away provided she hasn't been drugged, like when the rapist isn't aware of these anti-rape devices or is too drunk. However it is not worth the risk.

The hyperthetical situation is very likely to happen. A lot of women think 'these devices are a suitable punishment for rapists', but give no thought whatsoever about innocent men. They simply don't care if an innocent man suffers, all that matters to them is that someone suffers. This is why rape exists in the first place, women are not striving to be happy, they are lowering their social value to lower the value of men. Do you honestly expect men to respect women when they treat men like objects?

Discouraging rape doesn't stop rape, it would just increase rape for the same reasons guns haven't reduced rape or murder in America, and actually contribute to it, so anti-rape devices would be ineffective. Making these anti-rape devices legal means everyone must adapt to rape, and just accept nothing can be done about it because there's always going to be a lot of people raped. This is very damaging to people's mental health. There is a lot that can be done. Germany has made laws which have significantly reduced rape. But rape can be eradicated very easily if women chose to be more responsible.

You seem to suggest that the anti-rape devices should be legal because it will catch more rapists, and the law should be taken into your own hands because police can't always be there. However police aren't always there when an armed man asks a shop keeper to hand over his money, it doesn't mean he should try to stop the robber himself, he should comply with the robber even if he thinks he could take him on, and instead just call the police when it's safe. Likewise women should not take the law into their own hands as it worsens the situation. You might now be thinking 'what should women do, should they just freeze up?' No, they shouldn't even be asking that question.




sources:


[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Euphemia

Con

Euphemia forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by mostlogical 1 year ago
mostlogical
# JernHenrik - Under age girls are unlikely to wear anti-rape condoms because how would a parent explain the reason for it to their child? These anti-rape devices may therefore encourage rapists to target children, leading to children being forced to wear anti-rape devices, which will destroy their lives.

It wouldn't surprise me if women just blame rapists instead of taking responsibility; a third of women admit to binge drinking during pregnancy, and are probably waiting for a shop sign to say 'be responsible, purchase an anti-rape device today'.
Posted by JernHenrik 1 year ago
JernHenrik
But, I do like the idea of a rapist forcefully pressing his weapon inside a underage innocent girl, only to be feel extreme pain as the vagina bites back!
Posted by JernHenrik 1 year ago
JernHenrik
I don't care much for any products / devices designed to bite my penis!
Posted by Euphemia 1 year ago
Euphemia
I would much rather have 5 rounds, instead of 3, since the topic we're to be debating is so controversial.
Posted by RussiaPutinBest 1 year ago
RussiaPutinBest
Whats wrong with somebody wishing to protect themselves from being raped. Especially since there are many countries where police couldn't care less if it happened.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
Ok. Depending on if this is taken by the time I get home or not, I might accept.
Posted by mostlogical 1 year ago
mostlogical
I think these devices should be made illegal in every country including South Africa where some women take drastic measures to prevent rape with some inserting razor blades wrapped in sponges in their private parts.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
I'm guessing you mean in the U.S.?
No votes have been placed for this debate.