Well, shouldn't it? Of the two people directly involved in a rape, the rapist and the victim, the woman only has control over the preparations and responses of one of them.

If you're talking about social policies, you'd consider the rapist, but when you're thinking on an entirely different level, on the level of the here and now that will be faced by some as yet unknown individual woman at some as yet unknown time, one must simply take for granted that the rapist exists and will make his move at an opportune time.

What exactly are you suggesting is the alternative for a woman who wants to not get raped? Assume that she has no reason to prepare or anticipate that sort of thing because if it happened it wouldn't be their fault?

Mistyped pronoun: that last "their" should be "her."

Okay, but the ladies would be able to take them off, unlike the ankle tags worn by offenders, right? So maybe the problem is with the aides' unfortunate explanation rather than the actuality of the device. Otherwise, it sounds just like that necklace my grandma ordered that has a little button she can push to alert the EMT's if she falls and can't get up. Or like the alert posts on some campuses with the button you push when you're being attacked to alert the police. Or any number of other devices that alert the authorities if your attacked...

Is acquaintance rape the most common form in Rome as well?

Yeah, the only problem I can see is that fact that everyone won't be getting these things.

It is basically a high tech rape whistle. What’s the problem (other than the fact that there would ever be a need for a rape whistle in the first place)?

Honestly? I'd wear one. I live in DC as a student and there have, in the past WEEK, been two sexual assaults, an armed burglary, and several other break-ins on and around my campus, which is in a "safe" part of town. I am genuinely more afraid of "stranger" rape than I am of acquaintance rape at this point, but it seems like it'd be handy for alerting the police to all kinds of other problems/attacks as well if you didn't have or couldn't access a cell phone.

I don't understand how this leaves the rapist out of the equation.

A device designed to help stick rapists in jail.....is bad?

A person isn't a rapist until the person commits his first rape. Until then, there is no way of knowing who in society will break laws.

I

I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect women to at least participate in protecting themselves from rape. I consider it similar to protecting myself from getting into a car crash or keeping your house from being robbed. You do your part to get some kind of alert system in place so if it does happen, at least someone is alerted so it's easier to catch the rapist (or burglar, etc.) and hold them accountable for what they did (or tried to do). We obviously need to fix our legal system and how they view rape and the woman's role, but that doesn't mean she shouldn't be encouraged to protect herself.

FYI: This dude was not elected, and his proposal was heavily criticized in the media et al.

The reason it was heavily criticized is that at best it is a band aid solution to a much larger problem of an inadequate Italian criminal justice system.

Many sex offenders are known criminals who are in and out of the system until they finally rape and/or kill someone.

There is little consistency to how they sentence individuals; judges have too much discretion; there is a lot less accountability; and few checks and balances are in place.

Having said that, rape is definitely one of the crimes on the rise in the past 5 to 10 years, so I'm sure this won't be the last of these types of proposals.

I'm obviously not Jessica and am not trying to speak for her, but I think what she meant was that while anti-rape devices certainly aren't bad, what IS bad is that men are never addressed in discussions about rape. When rape is addressed it's generally either victim-blaming or it's like, "Look, you too can stop rape...by donning this bracelet/toothed condom/whatever," instead of placing blame on THE RAPIST, who more than anyone is in a good place to stop rape. Even the passive language used in articles like these successfully remove the rapist from the situation. Anti-rape devices like this one are great and I hope they help out a lot of women, but it's not right that the only rape prevention tactics rest with the women who are presumed to be future victims.

Also: why just for rape? Shouldn't something like this be plenty useful for everyone in case of any mugging/assault by a random stranger-type crime?

Jess, I totally understand your position, but in this case I think the good outweighs the bad. Like adminassistant said, it- like Grandma's medibraclet- calls for authorities when you need help. Actually, I would prefer a smaller, more inconpicious button-like device you can carry in a pocket or on a keychain- I think it would be great to have if a woman was worried about a stalker boyfriend/husband or aquaintance rape. Something you could just press instead of having to reach for/find a phone and dial 911 (or whatever the Italian equivalent is). At my college they handed out WHISTLES to freshman female students. WHISTLES!! Like, if you are attacked, just blow this and hope someone who might be able to hear you will come rescue you! It would have been MUCH better to hand out something like this that would immediately contact authorities. This won't address ALL forms of rape- but it might help in some cases. At this point, I'll take what we can get. I just wish there was a bigger push to address aquaintance rape and really get people to understand that it's not just (or predominantly) strangers in bushes/dangerous areas of town you have to worry about. I've been in a situation before that could have gotten very ugly (but luckily didn't) and no one would have heard me or found me- I would have REALLY appreciated having one of those devices then for sure.

bittergradstudent - Makes sense. It could function as an general panic button.

"When rape is addressed it's generally either victim-blaming or it's like, "Look, you too can stop rape...by donning this bracelet/toothed condom/whatever," instead of placing blame on THE RAPIST"

offering safety measures does not victim blame. this government is attempting to offer a safety precaution to women. this is not blaming anyone, but as someone articulated earlier, women are targets for rape. using safety precautions is not accepting *responsibility* for being raped, and the tendency many feminists have to conflate the too is ridiculous.

Sounds like the "rape whistles" all the freshman girls at my college got.

Incidentally, would an anti-rape initiative that targeted potential rapists be effective? Somehow, I doubt they commit the act for lack of understanding.

i think kate nailed it.....

I don't see what the problem is. My campus has a bunch of "Public Emergency Response Telephone"s situated around campus. It provides a direct line to police who know exactly where the call is coming from. The bracelets sound like a portable version of the same system. Since they would only have one function, notifying authorities that you need assistance and relaying your exact location, they would be more inconspicuous and more reliable than cell phones.

Cate- what you are saying makes sense, in re-reading the post you are prob right (jump in any time Jess!) The public authorities don't spend nearly as much time addressing men and how men can prevent rape (seek active consent, don't have sex with her if she can't actively give consent). Most of the airtime is aimed at women and how we can "make ourselves safer" by never going outside after sunset or walking down anything other than Main steet with a police escort (which dismisses entirely the idea that home might actually BE the dangerous place for many women).

Sigh, the older I get the more I feel like my "alarm button" is going to be issued by Smith & Wesson.

The common feminist attitude that, when it comes to rape, women are always completely helpless and utterly powerless to have taken any hand whatsoever in their own fate, either in advance or in the moment, is, if nothing else, a very defeatist way to approach life, and at worst, a complete contradiction to the idea of female empowerment.

A more constructive approach might be to promote the fact that "no" is more likely to actually be taken to mean "no" if it's followed by a second "no" delivered in .45 caliber form, possibly followed by several additional .45 caliber "no"s as appropriate. That's the approach I take, anyway.

For women who can't afford a cell phone, it would be a novel idea to have some kind of wi-fi item to attach to a key-chain to immediately alert police that they need assistance.

And for that matter, roll it out to men and children.

Um, I should clarify: that's the approach I prepare to take. I have never actually had to refuse sex via handgun.

Once again, putting the onus on women to protect themselves from rape takes the rapist - remember him? - out of the equation. Not okay.

It is probably very hard to get the potential rapists to wear such kind of bracelets or possibly activate them in case they were planning on raping someone.

This seems like a good idea to me, it could help prevent rape. Obviously it would be a million times better if women could just go through an alley without need of protection, but that is incredibly hard to achieve, I assume.

I mean I appreciate the sentiment, but it's not without some introspection.

No matter how you spin it, it's a weak position to be in. I mean you push the button and hope that somebody arrives in time.

All the while knowing that if the cops do get there, you are still going to be faced with the possibility of not being believed, depending on the circumstances.

I'm a non-violent kinda character, but some days it's hard.

Yes. Yes I would. Like Meredith pointed out, though, it would be handy for it to be marketed for use for other types of assaults as well.

Yes. Yes I would. Like Meredith pointed out, though, it would be handy for it to be marketed for use for other types of assaults as well.

Indeed. It seems basically just like an easier and faster way to call 911. Probably smart for anyone that doesn't want to get mugged, raped or killed.

Also, I disagree very much that the rapists are taken out of consideration when discussing such accidents. There are idiots that blame the victims, but there are just that many people that talk about how rapists should be castrated and tortured and then fed to little puppies, which I personally find a bit ridiculous as well. I wouldn't say that rapists are not considered in the public discourse of rape, though.

Sorry folks, ran out for a second. Cate, Nazrafel thanks - you folks got it.

I'm not saying women shouldn't protect themselves in the ways that make them feel comfortable. But I don't think that I should have to wear a fucking monitoring bracelet to be safe. What happened to the idea that women should be allowed to walk freely in public spaces without fear of assault!?

And yes, this does take the onus off the rapist. Because the bracelet is all about how to stop women from being raped instead of how to stop men from raping women.

This also reminds me of the conversation we had a while back about Rapex, the anti-rape device.

It also related back to the women-only train cars to curb harassment. What happens to those women who don't take those train cars, or who don't wear a bracelet - will they be asked why they weren't taking the "proper precautions" before daring to go out into public?

I'm sorry I'm getting heated, but come on - I shouldn't have to wear an ankle bracelet like frigging a criminal in order to feel safe. These are our streets, our trains, our public spaces - and we deserve to walk freely around them without being raped. You want to help curb sexual assault? Here's a crazy idea - start with with the perpetrators.

Echoing some of the other comments here, this "rape bracelet" is nothing more than a band aid for a bullet wound. Yes, it may address some forms of sexual assault for some people, but it's not going to be as useful as people think.

In essence, is a placebo strapped around women's wrists. They feel safer wearing one and the officials in the government get to look like they actually care about preventing sexual assault.

As has been stated here previously, very few people are sexually assaulted by strangers as they walk through dangerous areas. Could this bracelet prevent that? Maybe. Will it? Probably not.

I see this backfiring in major ways. First of all, it should be available to everyone, not just women, for reasons of quickly alerting police to experienced and witnessed crime in general, not just sexual assault. Therefore, there will be more people and more expense involved in having them.

Second, what are the implications of accidentally tripping the "rape bracelet"? Whether women were just scared by the young boys across the street, or they just accidentally hit the button, are women then lectured for "crying rape"? That says nothing of the crying wolf phenomenon. If there are enough accidental calls to police, police won't respond as quickly (if they are going to respond quickly to calls from these bracelets in the first place, which I kind of doubt).

The next comes the victim blaming. If a woman wearing the bracelet is attacked, but is attacked in such a way she didn't have the time, strength, or courage to press the button, you better believe that will be brought up later as "She must have consented, then, because she didn't put up enough of a fight to even push a button."

This can even be taken a step further when a woman is attacked and isn't wearing a bracelet will be questioned as to why she didn't have one. "Weren't you asking for it by walking through this dangerous area wearing those clothes and not wearing a 'rape bracelet'? Why didn't you want to do everything to protect yourself? Didn't you get exactly what you expected?"

These may sound over the top, but I've been working with survivors for years now, and I would fully expect these reactions from others.

In theory, these "rape bracelets" don't sound horrible; however, my experience tells me that in practice, they have the potential to be another thing women are blamed for in their assault experiences.

I agree with you. I just don't really see an easy way how to make sure of that. And for the time being, I'd say it is better to be safe with a bracelet instead of being unsafe but proving a point.

Though, I am wondering, what would you propose to create such an environment?

ellestar, right on.[

bardock--her point was that the bracelet doesn't make you safe in the first place so your choices don't really make sense.

While it is a comforting thought to have such a device available, a common response to rape is for the victim to "freeze." I doubt a person in the state of shock that comes from being attacked would think to push a button to alert the police. A better defense would be to teach women assertiveness and self-defense strategies.

Do people really not see the problem with telling women that they should wear a government tracking device in order to avoid rape? Really?

If you don't see how this sort of device leads to victim blaming, take a look at what people are saying right here on this thread. "I'd say it is better to be safe with a bracelet instead of being unsafe but proving a point"; "I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect women to at least participate in protecting themselves from rape." The first seems to imply that being safe from rape is something women can choose as easily as they can choose to take birth control to be safe from pregnancy; the second is more nuanced, but the problem comes with the word "expect". If people who remain safely unnamed thanks to the passive voice can expect this (as if any women out there don't try to avoid being raped), then do they also get to decide what women have to do in order to be considered to have taken sufficient precautions?

Practically, sure, you can take self-defense courses and assertiveness training. Do whatever you need to do to feel safe, but that's a whole different kettle of fish from a government-sponsored initiative that could create a new standard that women are expected to meet lest they be seen as "asking for it" or taking too much of a risk.

I don't see how self-defense training precludes victim blaming and, frankly, I think the way to prevent victim blaming is by attacking the tendency to blame the victim rather than shooting down measures intended to help women which, in practice, can also be used against them.

Good as the intentions might be, really, all these bracelets do is cover up the fact that it seems like everywhere, rape is not discussed properly. Making women wear bracelets won't stop potential rapists.

I support the idea of self-defense training and other such things, but that really doesn't make potential rapists any less likely to attack. It's not solving the problem, just (hopefully) changing the outcome of the attempts.

Women shouldn't have to wear those bracelets. The world needs to work on making that a reality.

Jessica said: It also related back to the women-only train cars to curb harassment. What happens to those women who don't take those train cars, or who don't wear a bracelet - will they be asked why they weren't taking the "proper precautions" before daring to go out into public?

I think this is a really excellent point.

"What happened to the idea that women should be allowed to walk freely in public spaces without fear of assault!?"

---------

The Italian government specifically mentions that this bracelet is for women who happen to be walking alone in BAD areas (not your typical public area).

Gender, honestly, has little to do with it.

If you walk in a bad area, the risk of violent assault multiplies.

A more constructive approach might be to promote the fact that "no" is more likely to actually be taken to mean "no" if it's followed by a second "no" delivered in .45 caliber form, possibly followed by several additional .45 caliber "no"s as appropriate. That's the approach I take, anyway.

HA! I love it.

The Italian government specifically mentions that this bracelet is for women who happen to be walking alone in BAD areas (not your typical public area).

Now if only we could better define what a "bad" area is. I doubt this has to do with "hot spot" policing. Typically, "bad" areas are translated as areas with "people different than me." And who are these areas "bad" for? You're bringing up vocabulary and wording that is rife with negative connotations in both racism and classism.

What the bracelet seems to be a placebo for is for wealthier women who have to expose themselves to areas that are less economically advantaged. They fear those who live there. The bracelets give these women a false sense of security from their own prejudices.

Gender, honestly, has little to do with it.

Christ. Gender only has little to do with fear of rape if you're a man.

A wealthy woman wouldn't be walking home.

you know, i think self defense classes, rape whistles, that rapex condom thing, and this new contraption are all pretty okay ideas...

only problem is what about the people who are being raped by their partners, their dates, their friends, their family members, etc...? i think all of the above precautions target only stranger rape which is important to address but in the minority of all rape cases.

Furthermore, how is writing off the women who'd take advantage of this as privileged bigots any better than victim blaming, especially when you're going so far as to make a blanket judgment of an entire group of women whom you don't even share a country with, as far as I know.

Once again, putting the onus on women to protect themselves from rape takes the rapist - remember him? - out of the equation. Not okay.

What?
I have a big problem with security system companies. They put the onus of protecting homes on the home-owners!

Wow, you really dropped a bomb on this one. Maybe in the future you might want to decide that you don't necessarily have to stretch things QUITE so far (into cuckoo land) to "find" harm against women (where none exists).

Where are the government initiatives to stop the rapist?
If Rome has such a huge problem that women have to go around wearing rape bracelets shouldn't there be something DRASTIC happening to premediatate these acts?

this reminds me of a ad on tele here at the moment that I blogged about recently...
http://charlottescrazy.blogspot.com/2008/05/blame-victim.html

After reading some threads here I'd like to make one other point.
These bracelets aren't going to make you "safe". They're only going to enable the cops to apprehend the culprit more quickly. Chances are the rape will be completed. In some of the inner cities in the USA you can wait nearly an hour for cops or emts.

And since I'm presuming that these high-crime areas are precisely where these bracelets are intended they're not really going to do much.

Another point:
What if the rapist steals your bracelet, gives it to his sister and when the cops come tells her to say:"I hit the button by mistake"
If the cops aren't on the ball I could totally see them not asking for her ID to confirm her identity.

A lot of times there is a low-tech workaround to high-tech gizmos. I remember seeing some B grade cloak-and-dagger style movie where a kid was in a laboratory building and diverted the motion sensor by throwing freesbies down all four hallways at an intersection (so he couldn't be followed).

jabes1966--with regard to your first comment, the difference is that rape is not a property crime and no one ever, EVER says "you didn't have a security system? you must have been asking to be burglarized!" there's no stigma or suspicion put upon people who have their homes burglarized, even if they forget to lock the doors the way that there is rape victims.

Ellestar opined:

Christ. Gender only has little to do with fear of rape if you're a man.

The simple fact is 99% of the places that a woman would fear being raped, a man would also fear for his safety.

In other words if a white well-to-do woman has her auto break down in a black inner city slum (and she has a dead cell phone) and she has to go find a phone booth, a white well-to-do man wouldn't feel much safer.

As evidenced here:
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2007/05/the_knoxville_h.php

This is a particularly gruesome assault upon a white man & woman by three black men and one black woman.
This story (which strangely got BURIED--go figure) brings up a whole host of issues about black hate of whites that obviously the liberal press doesn't want to deal with.
Quite frankly I think trying to find a solution to ONLY RAPE is always going to result in FAILURE unless it's encapsulated in a broader campaign to make sure that EVERYBODY is safe in their bodies and possessions everywhere.

The feminist constant preoccupation with rape (as the only crime that demonizes men and humanizes women) is really about stirring up hatred of men in women (much like constant stories of black oppression always seem to be in the media to stir up hatred of whites in blacks: Juna 6, Don Imus, blacks disproportionately affected by katrina, etc.. etc..)

Going on & on about rape is without this larger viewpoint of public safety in general is ONLY going to achieve (probably deliberately on some feminists' parts) the result of stirring up hatred against men.

How smart would it be if I started a campaign of preventing ONLY carjackings, or ONLY stabbings? The truth is it doesn't make very much sense at all, does it?

Typically, "bad" areas are translated as areas with "people different than me." And who are these areas "bad" for? You're bringing up vocabulary and wording that is rife with negative connotations in both racism and classism.
----------

uh....no.

A bad area is any area with a high crime rate.

It has nothing to do with "oh, these people are different me" Gang warfare exists between members of an ethnic group.

And anyways, are you trying to tell me that walking in an obviously slummy area, alone, at night is a sane idea?

Oh, and do you believe that any other violent crime that happens to a man, is somehow worse than rape inflicted upon a woman?

Let me rephrase my last statement, made a typo.

Is any other violent crime that could happen to a man less terrible than rape inflicted upon a woman?

Jabeswhatever -
STOP DERAILING. Fucking hell, man.

This is a post about rape. You came not only to a feminist site, but a thread specifically about rape and women and safety...to bitch about how women go on and on about...rape? Fuck off.

Furthermore, how is writing off the women who'd take advantage of this as privileged bigots any better than victim blaming, especially when you're going so far as to make a blanket judgment of an entire group of women whom you don't even share a country with, as far as I know.

I'm not writing off anyone. I personally don't think that "rape bracelets" will be effective for anything other than (falsely) alleviating some women's fear of rape and making government officials look hard on crime and pro-woman. My mention of race and class was in response to the fact that these would be in "bad" areas. My comment was to problematize what "bad area" really meant.

As has been mentioned a couple of times already on this thread, most women will be assaulted by someone they know, not by a stranger who is lurking somewhere in this "bad area." By focusing on making certain women feel better as they walk through "bad areas" will not alleviate the problem of sexual assault. It probably won't even alleviate the problem of sexual assault by strangers.

I brought up this problem of thinking of areas as "bad" based on Rebecca Campbell's book Emotionally Involved that discusses how researchers of sexual assault deal with the reality of rape. Her interviewers were nervous about "bad areas" of Chicago. They discussed these self-defense strategies they would use when they went to the projects to interview women about sexual assault. However, when an interviewer indignantly brought up that she lived in a project (and had since she was a child) that these researchers who were scared were fearful based on a lot of biases based on race and class. She pointed out that rapists really don't like to get caught and they would probably be much less hassled by police if they preyed upon poorer women from their own neighborhoods than a richer looking white researcher who cops (based on systemic racism and classism) would take more seriously and whose assaults they investigate investigate more thoroughly. Living there, she had more to fear than those who were just passing through. And living there, it was her home that the white researchers were disrespecting and fearful of.

I do not discount women's fear of sexual assault. It is a powerful thing and I believe that women should feel safe in public places. However, I'm not going to deny that fear has many of it's roots deeply embedded in racism and classism. According to the statistics, this fear is misplaced because sexual assault is mostly intra racial and perpetrated by people known to the victim.

I work closely with survivors of sexual assault. I have to see their pain nearly every day. If I thought that these bracelets had a chance in hell of stopping sexual assault, I would send my life savings to Rome to help fund them. I would give anything to have no job tomorrow.

Unfortunately, I have to live in a world where women are almost always blamed for the harm done to them. I reviewed an academic paper with statistics that stated that over 30% of the Italian population sampled believed that women who were attacked by complete strangers with weapons as they walked home from work were in some way at fault for the rape. So don't condescend to me that I have no idea what I'm talking about because I don't live in Italy. The problem lies in how a patriarchal society views sexual assault. If a society believes that rape bracelets will stop rape, they're in for a very rude awakening. Realistically, though, they're more likely to deny any assault that took place without someone tripping a rape bracelet as being consensual in some way.

I think Jabes has a point. Rape is only one of many symptoms of having people willing and able to commit violent crimes and get away with it more often than not. This makes me wonder if changes in rape rates tend to follow rates of violent crime in general. If so, attacking the causes of crime period might be more effective than attacking rape in particular, but I don't have the relevant statistics so I can't say.

Jabe was derailing the thread, but I think it's worth pointing out that a rape bracelet totally would have helped in the case he or she referenced in that race-baiting post.

Fact is, a personal item that connects to the police in emergencies in the same way a fire alarm alerts the fire department would stop some assaults and save some lives, and I don't see why those lives shouldn't be spared just because the system that stands to do so threatens to also lead to victim blaming, a phenomena that will always exist until it is tackled directly rather than fought through attacks on genuine attempts to help people.

Victim blaming needs to be fought through educating the police forces and the public at large, and any other measure will be ineffective and, in this case, counterproductive in the worst way possible through the shooting down of suggestions that might actually help people.

Like I said, my only quarrel is with the fact that rape and women have been singled out. Otherwise, this is just like being able to dial 911 at the drop of a hat and invites no greater threat of victim blaming than a cell phone, which does the same thing but slower.

You know? I should just adopt the rule that as soon as someone uses the phrase "demonizes men" - I should stop listening. It's the MRA calling card, and I have found - through this site no less - that even if the person doesn't call themselves such, they most certainly are reading up on anti-feminist crap.

And since I should bring it back to point, I gotta say that the idea of me wearing a bracelet that I would have to put on and take off frequently really means I'd start to forget to. I'd lose patience for it, I'd feel conflicted about being made to be *even more* responsible for my safety, and insisting on my goddam right to be where I want or have to be. I'm stubborn like that. Can you believe my audacity?!

And I'd be blamed.

I cannot envision this or any society siding with the survivor "especially if she had a tool she could have used but chose not to - wow how dumb." Oh hellz yeah I'd be blamed.

I can't explain it eloquently, but I don't equate this device at all with the emergency phones, or with the whistles. Those are for everyone (at least where I went whistles are handed out to anyone who wanted one). These bracelets, on the other hand, are only for women and do place a higher responsibility on them to prevent a rape. AS IF WE WOMEN DON'T ALREADY TAKE STEPS TO PROTECT OURSELVES.

You know? I should just adopt the rule that as soon as someone uses the phrase "demonizes men" - I should stop listening. It's the MRA calling card, and I have found - through this site no less - that even if the person doesn't call themselves such, they most certainly are reading up on anti-feminist crap.

And since I should bring it back to point, I gotta say that the idea of me wearing a bracelet that I would have to put on and take off frequently really means I'd start to forget to. I'd lose patience for it, I'd feel conflicted about being made to be *even more* responsible for my safety, and insisting on my goddam right to be where I want or have to be. I'm stubborn like that. Can you believe my audacity?!

And I'd be blamed.

I cannot envision this or any society siding with the survivor "especially if she had a tool she could have used but chose not to - wow how dumb." Oh hellz yeah I'd be blamed.

I can't explain it eloquently, but I don't equate this device at all with the emergency phones, or with the whistles. Those are for everyone (at least where I went whistles are handed out to anyone who wanted one). These bracelets, on the other hand, are only for women and do place a higher responsibility on them to prevent a rape. AS IF WE WOMEN DON'T ALREADY TAKE STEPS TO PROTECT OURSELVES.

The simple fact is 99% of the places that a woman would fear being raped, a man would also fear for his safety.

If it's so simple, I'm sure you can find a citation for it, then.

A bad area is any area with a high crime rate.

What kind of crime?

White collar?

Drugs?

Domestic violence?

Sexual assault?

It has nothing to do with "oh, these people are different me" Gang warfare exists between members of an ethnic group.

I have not heard of the epidemic of people walking home from work caught in gang crossfire.

And your "gang warfare exists between members of an ethnic group" begs a citation, please. And how is this germane to the subject of women's fear of sexual assault?

Is any other violent crime that could happen to a man less terrible than rape inflicted upon a woman?

Sexual violation, whether it be on a man or a woman is more terrible than other violent crimes (minus homicide), yes. And the statistics still show that women are more often victims of sexual assault (Tewksbury, 2007).

an interesting critique that i've yet to see mentioned (sorry if it has) but is ringing alarm bells in my head is the fact that women would be placing a government issues and controlled tracking device on their body. i see no mention of whether the signal would be active at all times, but the thought of it being so, is terrifying. in my professional life, i work for an organization that combats DV, IPV (choose your acronym) and knowing the statistics regarding abusive partners working in /on/for the police force makes me highly concerned for abuse of power regarding tracking and could potentially endanger women's lives!

an interesting critique that i've yet to see mentioned (sorry if it has) but is ringing alarm bells in my head is the fact that women would be placing a government issues and controlled tracking device on their body. i see no mention of whether the signal would be active at all times, but the thought of it being so, is terrifying. in my professional life, i work for an organization that combats DV, IPV (choose your acronym) and knowing the statistics regarding abusive partners working in /on/for the police force makes me highly concerned for abuse of power regarding tracking and could potentially endanger women's lives!

Rape is only one of many symptoms of having people willing and able to commit violent crimes and get away with it more often than not. This makes me wonder if changes in rape rates tend to follow rates of violent crime in general. If so, attacking the causes of crime period might be more effective than attacking rape in particular, but I don't have the relevant statistics so I can't say.

This might be true for stranger rape, which is more likely to be a crime of opportunity, but I don't think it would have much bearing on acquaintance rape, which is the more serious threat for a large segment of the female population.

Uhm, I don't think anything has been said about each bracelet being personalized, such that a person on a police force may track down a specific woman's location.

And also, as has been said, this is pretty much just a medical alert bracelet distributed on a wider scale. Did anything negative follow the distribution of medical alert bracelets?

Also, they aren't obligatory.

I don't see why you couldn't use the bracelet in the event of some cases of acquaintance rape, though of course unconsciousness and/or an unwillingness to call the police upon your attacker may stop you.

Nonetheless, I think the idea that this will have no effect on acquaintance rape is false, as is the idea that a measure which only targets stranger rape isn't worth enacting at all.

But of course, the situations that call for the use of this item should, and probably would, eventually spread to cover all extreme crimes and all potential victims in the same way that 911 is an all purpose and patron number.

Robos, I swear I am not picking a fight but I have to say that your comments make me realize how varied the idea of feminism is (not that you have outright identified as a feminist), since I find myself disagreeing with almost every point you have been making on every thread.

I have not counseled like ellestar, instead I volunteered at a center where most of the women were raped by strangers and/or by acquaintances, and/or relatives, and/or husbands. All of them felt despondent. Those who sought help from the police were often blamed. Some, especially due to anti-immigrant sentiment - were actually jailed on trumped up charges. Humor ellestar for a minute, please, and understand that this mechanical, techy gadget would have very real, and negative consequences for many women. Good in theory, not in practice. For it to work, it is essential for the police and officials to not be susceptible to victim-blaming, and that is impossible if the culture they are embedded in reinforces the idea that women are responsible for someone else's actions. On top of that, you are talking about a country that believes there is a finite value to a woman, and will deem her less worthy depending on her sexual history as proven by that ruling on the 14 yr old raped by her step-father.

Hey rape apologist (you know who you are). Read this post http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/05/you-think-that-was-assault.html at Shakesville for what happens when women actually fight back.

Can't imagine why any women might "demonize men" (Oh i don't know, maybe because they rape!)

Also, they aren't obligatory.

Yet I have the sneaking suspicions that women who don't wear one will be questioned as to why not and partially blamed for the lack of bracelet. Do not underestimate society's propensity for victim blame.

There will be victim blaming no matter what. Victim blaming isn't going to increase just because women have one other means of protecting themselves. Therefore, new means of protecting yourself should not be dismissed just because of omnipresent victim blaming.

It's pretty easy to make a list of reasons about why you think something sucks. However, the only solid reason not to at least try this idea is if it is directly competing for funds with another initiative aimed at curbing sexual assault.

So, what are some ideas from those who think this idea will lead to victim blaming? What are some perpetrator oriented measures that have not been implemented that you think would be better and more helpful?

ellestar,

i dont understand why you are being so coy. You wouldn't walk down a street known for extreme violence.

As for self-raical warfare, Have you ever been to Southern California? Heard of the Bloods and Crips? The Mafia? Wars between mostly white biker gangs?

-----------------------
Sexual violation, whether it be on a man or a woman is more terrible than other violent crimes (minus homicide), yes. And the statistics still show that women are more often victims of sexual assault (Tewksbury, 2007).
-------------------

This is completely subjective. Im not gonna argue this; but being nearly beaten to death is as an atrocity equal to rape.

Since you want to play the game of "let me pick statistics that show victimization of my gender"

Here:

From the US Department of Justice:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/vsxtab.htm

Men experience violent crime 54.2% more than women.

"Violent crimes included are homicide, rape, robbery, and both simple and aggravated assault."

Since you want to play the game of "let me pick statistics that show victimization of my gender"

From where I stand, the only person who seems to be playing games is you. Ellestar accurately cited statistics on the prevalence of sexual assault. In a thread about sexual assault, of all places! Mercy me!

Did you know victim blaming is in the Bible? It's true!

That said, I don't think something as deeply entrenched as this is going to be affected by new technologies, especially when the introduction of whistles, horns, mace, cell phones, and other such devices have had no discernible effect.

I am going to agree with those that said this isn't removing the rapist from the equation.

To me it's a method for protecting yourself. It is an unfortunate fact that rapes happen, and that they happen mostly to women, but until that fact changes - and I'm not saying that isn't something we should work for - there need to be readily available methods for fighting back/notifying authorities.

I can however see how this could lead to (more) victim blaming. It's not a stretch. I know if something ever happened to me one of the first questions would be "why were you so stupid to walk around with the city your iPod on?" You know, like millions of other people do without getting attacked every day.

I don't think it's inherently a bad idea. Just something to add to self defense classes and keychain pepper spray, I guess.

But not a replacement for methods that actually deter perpetrators, of course.

"i dont understand why you are being so coy. You wouldn't walk down a street known for extreme violence."

I am going to ignore the coy insult - and instead say that, uhm, sometimes those extremely violent streets are unavoidable. Some of us, uhm, grew up on those streets. Some of us had no choice. What's your point with this? If something happened to me, and I lived and therefore had no choice but to walk in those bad areas, it would somehow be my fault?

I really need to put in my two cents here.

I feel like almost all of the posts here, (even the original one, sorry Jess) are totally missing the point.

Would publicly availability of these devices actually lower the quantity of rapes that occur?

It does seem hard to predict, but let's say this is instituted as a widespread program, and over the next two years the number of rapes in Rome has a statistically significant decrease, it would take a pretty significant drawback for me to say that such a measure wasn't worthwhile.

Of course, if after two years there's no change beyond what would be predicted by chance, then this idea ought to be scrapped (at least for the time being).

The comparison to prisoners doesn't sound particularly apt to me, not without some for of coercion, anyway.

...and lastly, I'm certainly not naive enough to believe that this alone would solve much of the problem of rape. But I would still like to see some numbers on reduced instances of rape and violent crime that result (or don't).

Im not victim blaming...

Its not anyone's fault that they live where they do and if they happen to be attacked.

Did you Jem, live a normal life? Did you not take precautions, living in the bad area that you did?

The rape bracelet, along with the 911 system, are precautionary measures intended to HELP the victims and IMPRISON the perpetrators.

mirm: Hey rape apologist (you know who you are). Read this post at Shakesville for what happens when women actually fight back.

More like, what happens when women fight back unarmed. In the year 2000, 550 rapes were prevented in the United States per day by the mere display of a firearm. A few others were also prevented by the use of a firearm, but weapons were only fired 0.9% of the time they were used to prevent violent crimes.(1) Or, give a relative rate instead of an absolute one, when a woman targeted for rape was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of rape attacks are completed, compared to 32% when unarmed.(2)

Of course, one hears a lot of nonsense about guns being taken away from women and used against them. As if the woman wouldn't still be at a disadvantage if she had simply never brought the gun, and ignoring the train of thought that makes one wonder, if that were indeed the case, whether we should perhaps require convicted sex offenders to carry handguns at all times, so that if they attack someone, that person can take their gun and use it against them, the fact of the matter is that women are actually 2.5 times more likely to be seriously injured during violent crimes in which they offer no resistance than in those in which they resist with a firearm.(1)

Of all the causes of rape, critical lead defficiency on the part of rapists does seem to be among the leading ones. Of course, that's not quite right, since as I mentioned most defensive uses of firearms don't involve firing the weapon. I guess that's the placebo effect at work, eh? Such a shame that the law is determined to rob the vulnerable of the coercive power that the predators can get by simply being strong and numerous.

---

(1)National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics

(2)U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American
Cities, 1979

Would I wear such a bracelet? No, but I don't carry pepper spray either. Then again, when I go walking at night (I live out in the country) I carry a big stick. It makes me feel *safe*, like I have at least taken a precaution in case something happens, whether it is from a four-footed predator or a two-footed one.

If rape bracelets, pepper spray, guns, knives, walking sticks, cell phones, whatever, makes someone feel safer, then I see nothing wrong with taking back that bit of control.

I never realized until I moved back to the country, how much *control* I was giving the city over my actions. Where I walked, what I wore, when I walked, how I treated others while I was walking...

As long as the circumstances of our lives dictate our actions instead of our actions dictating our circumstances, we will never be able to get to the point where the first reaction will be to teach people to *respect* one another instead of always looking out for number one and hurting someone before they have the chance to hurt you.

A place to start is to give control to women, even if it's something as ineffective as a rape bracelet or pepper spray. In essence it tells women (or whoever decides to wear one) that they will have some control over what happens to them, that they aren't a complete victim.

My $.02, I'm sure someone will be along in a moment to call me an apologist.

FeDhu: A place to start is to give control to women, even if it's something as ineffective as a rape bracelet or pepper spray.

How could you possibly call it "control" if it's ineffective? That's just the illusion of control, which is even more dangerous than lacking control but knowing it!

First of all, let me restate that if they implement this, I think it should be for all crimes. My main issue is that this crime will benefit the government officials that put forth this plan more than it will help any potential victims. I also see this as having a major chance of backfiring.

i dont understand why you are being so coy. You wouldn't walk down a street known for extreme violence.

Coy? I believe I've been extremely forthcoming.

Again, I'm going to have to ask you to define your terms. What is "extreme violence"? (Sorry, I keep imagining a street where they shoot arrows at me and I have to dodge swinging axes or something.)

If you're asking if I would be willing to walk down a street known for gang-related crime (since that's what you defined as "bad" above): Sure, if I needed to get somewhere. I don't have a car and public bus systems are not known for leaving me at the doorstep of most places I need to get to. But I'm not clear what point this proves.

Im not gonna argue this; but being nearly beaten to death is as an atrocity equal to rape.

In terms of recovery symptoms of depression, negative self images, anxiety, feelings of helplessness and loss of control and psychosomatic symptoms, survivors of sexual assault experience those negative symptoms occur in greater intensity and for longer duration than victims of other violent crimes (see Harrell, Smith, & Cook, 1985, and Resick, 1990 for review).

Individual experiences are subjective, but the statistical data hold that you're full of it.

Men experience violent crime 54.2% more than women.

So? Most crime is male perpetrated.

From your same site:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus/current/cv0538.pdf

"Violent crimes included are homicide, rape, robbery, and both simple and aggravated assault."

I looked at your statistics. It does not say that men experience sexual assault more than women.

Also from the same site you gave me (thanks, it was very helpful in further proving my points):

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus/current/cv0502.pdf

I have to warn you, if you want to play dueling statistics and citations with me, you'll lose. First of all, I teach statistics. Secondly, I'm writing a dissertation on this very subject. I already have 300 pages of argument against whatever point you're failing to make.

I can't believe people here are actually arguing that rape is no "worse" a crime than other crimes. Ranking crimes is completely counterproductive. Rape is, in the vast majority of cases, a crime directed specifically towards women and with a specific purpose, which is why we're focusing on it on a feminist website and in a different way. Are people here really claiming not to understand how rape has been used throughout history as an oppressive tool? You can admit that rape is in many ways a "unique" crime without saying that other forms of assault are not also disturbing. Not recognizing the way rape functions in our society is to say that the "hate" aspect of hate crimes is irrelevant. It's not.

But I'm not clear what point this proves.
-------

The reason why I posted here originally, was to support the idea that wearing a bracelet for bad areas while walking alone isn't a bad idea. Really, that all i was trying to say before the conversation shifted.

You asked me to define a "bad" area, accusing me of classist and racist sentiment.
Your constant asking of a definition gave me the impression that you deny the existence of crime-infested, slummy neighborhoods, that i have seen many times in my life.

If a woman walks in an area with consistently high crime rates, isn't it a rational assumption to assume that she is at a higher risk of being raped, and that the bracelet might be a good idea?

There really is no difference between the 911 system and the bracelet.

I defined a bad neighborhood as one with high instances of violent crime, not necessarily gang violence. A very simple definition that applies to many slummy areas. And no, it doesn't mean that there are people with crossbows waiting to shoot you. It doesn't mean that walking there will always get you killed.

I only brought up racial gangs because you said that people define bad as something that isn't like them. Which is ridiculous, because when a black guy in certain black neighborhoods wears the wrong color tshirt, he gets shot.

And regarding stats

1) I never said that men are sexually assaulted more

2) Men are obviously the chief perpetrators.

But, you could also say that men make up the majority of the police force, which in turn prevent crime.

And about the statistics

1) I never denied that women are sexually assaulted more.

2) Men are obviously mostly the perpetrators, i didn't find that worth mentioning because i thought it was common knowledge.

I only mentioned the male violence statistic because generally, feminists criminally ignore any statistic that upsets their continuum of absolute female victimization. Females are not the only ones suffering in the world.

The fact that MRA and feminism dwell on one-sided victimization, targeted against a common enemy (a demographic of millions), is upsetting to me.

wtf.....i could have sworn i deleted the first "about the stats"

anyhoo

Erm, where's the problem? So, a lady (or maybe even a gentleman) who has a feeling that she might get raped - or robbed, kidnapped, whatever - can use her free will to get this tracking thingie.

My place was robbed the other day. So now, I have bulletproof glass in my windows and a door that can be opened with keys or a bulldozer. It cost me an arm and leg. Voila, a crime victim took the burden of protecting herself against a crime - that's how it's done in several parts of the world. People have locks on their doors, carry guns, get insurance. If someone, be it a woman who thinks she might be raped or mugged decides to carry a tracking device, what's wrong with it?

So, where's the problem, that the Italian spoke about women?
Or because the thing is basically the same as a tracking device used for offenders?
Or because some might dare and say that women might be crime victims because everybody knows women are so strong that they would kick the hell out every criminal?
Or would the tracking device be better installed on men, programmed to find out that the guy is raping or mugging someone and then inform the police?

I don't get the rage. Maybe I'm not feminist enough. No, I'm sure I'm not. I was so rude and ignorant of the feminist principles that I even protect myself from crime offenders. Bad, bad me.

Yes, this might be a good preventive device for people being robbed too, but it is being pushed as a rape bracelet and the proposal would only make it available to women as a rape bracelet. This makes it clear to me that the emphasis is not on preventing crime so much as it is keeping control of women and treating them more like posessions (like sticking an alarm system on a car) than like autonomous human beings (because really, this would be an option offered to both sexes in that case).

qwerty --

"Im not gonna argue this; but being nearly beaten to death is as an atrocity equal to rape." (goes on to make a snarky comment about how women just try to victimize themselves) "Men experience violent crime 54.2% more than women."

The point I was trying to "prove" was that this is a completely ridiculous, irrelevant, and counterproductive way to approach the issue of rape.

You asked me to define a "bad" area, accusing me of classist and racist sentiment.

Actually if you go back and read, I was very careful not to accuse you of being classist or racist. I don't know you and wouldn't go so far as to assume the worst of you.

However you were using some similar buzzwords that those I have personally met and interacted with have used in a racist manner, so I brought it up.

If a woman walks in an area with consistently high crime rates, isn't it a rational assumption to assume that she is at a higher risk of being raped

Not in my experience. Friends and acquaintances of mine who have grown up in the "slums" and the projects have never told me of stranger rape. It's true that women who are more economically disadvantaged are more likely to experience sexual assault and are more likely to be present in economically disadvantaged areas, but they aren't more likely to be assaulted by strangers.

There really is no difference between the 911 system and the bracelet.

My point is that women who don't call 911 right away are often criticized and then blamed for that. I see the same thing happening with the bracelet. And, again based on personal experience, and as posters above have brought up, police rarely rush to the more high crime areas of the city. I'm critical of this actually preventing any crime. I'm happy to be proved wrong.

I only mentioned the male violence statistic because generally, feminists criminally ignore any statistic that upsets their continuum of absolute female victimization.

I have to take exception to that statement. Feminists focus on female victimization because, in many cases, it's a product of patriarchy. We can go on and on with "what about the menz" and PHMT, but it's not a fault of feminism to point out where female victimization is unique. And with all of the rape apologists and deniers out there, I believe it's not the feminists who are criminally ignoring statistics.

If a woman walks in an area with consistently high crime rates, isn't it a rational assumption to assume that she is at a higher risk of being raped, and that the bracelet might be a good idea?

There really is no difference between the 911 system and the bracelet.

Yes, especially in the sense that the police will probably take so long to get there that the prospective rapist will have a nice head start.

Look, nobody's saying there's anything wrong with rape whistles, self-defense classes, etc. The problem is when the government is failing to protect people, and the solution offered BY THE GOVERNMENT, instead of, you know, better policing or a better justice system, is a rape bracelet. (I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but I suspect Jessica would not have an objection to some private entrepreneur selling rape bracelets, as they do whistles, mace, etc.). It betrays a worldview that sees rape as an inevitable fact of life, like a disease, to be dealt with by the victim rather than prevented.

Oh, and there's also the problem that this would be a totally useless bullshit measure. It's a bracelet that contacts the Italian police: contacting the Italian police is, in my experience, only slightly more effective than covering your eyes and pretending no one can see you. You might as well give women a bracelet that contacts the French Foreign Legion, or the Boy Scouts.

Misgiving: To be fair, I should add that my only significant experience with Italian police was in Naples. In Rome the situation is probably a lot better.

"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

Latinist: The problem is when the government is failing to protect people...

I don't know how it is in Italy, but in the US at least, courts have consistently ruled that government police forces are not actually responsible for protecting people in the first place.

Misgiving: To be fair, I should add that my only significant experience with Italian police was in Naples. In Rome the situation is probably a lot better.

The carabinieri (the ones with the fabulous uniforms) enjoy a nationwide reputation of blissful incompetence. Lying to them is said to be a national sport.

look i'm going to go out on a limb here and just say one thing: women will always be in sexual danger. furthermore, human beings will *always* face danger from one another. there is never going to be a time when violence between humans does not occur. it's not going to happen. can we try to reduce it? yes. and i agree with jessica and most of the posters here that argue most "preventative" measures focus on the women. but it's also important to acknowledge that women (and all people) do have protective methods that they all use to reduce their risk of violence. i understand and am infuriated by the tendency to question rape victims with, "why did you walk there alone at night?", etc. this should *not* happen. the underlining point here is that there is not a single rape survivor in the world who bears *any* responsibility for her own rape. at the same time, it is important to recognize and acknowledge suggestive methods for reducing the susceptability to rape, attack, and violence. hope this makes sense, it's late..

I'm not saying this is a bad idea necessarily, but do these rape bracelets (like the house arrest anklets) keep track of the women all of the time? Because, call me paranoid, but I wouldn't really want anyone to know where I am at all times. Also, the idea that women without the bracelets who were raped being blamed for not taking the proper precautions is terrifying and probably something that would come up.

I wasn't equating victim blaming and responsibility. I said that rape is normally addressed as victim blaming OR as the woman taking the responsibility entirely.

This GPS bracelet is far from a perfect solution. I think it would just help to create a false sense of security. You push a button and then hope that the police arrive in time. I think it would be much more pratical and useful for women to take self defense classes and carry mace or pepper spray. Then at least they can take a more active role in defending and protecting themselves and wouldn't just be pushing a buttong and hoping that the police arrive before they get raped.

And if the police force is lacking in numbers or in the way that they react to rape and sexual assault, then what are the chances that they would have enough police on hand to respond to every "rape bracelet alarm" fast enough?

Then once rapists get hip to the rape bracelets, they can just take them off of the woman, or force the woman to take the bracelet off. Not a perfect solution at all. I would encourage women to take self defense classes and carry pepper spray.

Jabes1966, I'm going to suggest that you go to Finally a Feminism 101 blog and hang out for a while before commenting on this blog again. Qwerty, please stop derailing. I'm appalled at all the rape apologism I'm seeing on this thread. Makes me want to shut down comments altogether just so I don't have to think about how depressing the world is.

I don't see why a bracelet couldn't be used in conjunction with pepper spray or self-defense. With either, you still need to call the police as soon as possible and, as I said before, this bracelet just offers a faster way of calling the police that can be activated without any dialing, without having to worry about the sound alerting an attacker, and can even be used while running.

Furthermore, unlike pepper spray and self-defense, you can use a bracelet even if you're drunk or have been drugged, which is great because a great number of rapes utilize alcohol.

Truth be told, I think this thing is the best safety item since the fucking cell phone, and I want everyone to have one even if "it's not a perfect solution". Nothing is a perfect solution, anything that doesn't protect you 100% of the time has the potential to bestow a false sense of security, and anything can be used against you in the context of victim blaming. With that in mind, we shouldn't be shooting things that will save lives down because of a cynical attitude towards the police and the wish that every woman could take down an attacker herself by being well-armed and well-trained because, frankly, that attitude doesn't excludes the great number of women who'll never consent to turning using a weapon or turning their bodies into weapons.

Really, your solution is just as imperfect.

I wish I could edit posts, because literally everything I say is riddled with typos.

Hey: this all assumes that there will be help available within moments of the bracelet being pressed and that police will consider it a priority. Given what happens with domestic violence calls, rarely are women victims of what are considered crimes against women considered priority.
Also: if a rapists sees the woman push the button, sees the bracelet, he could become very angry and hurt/kill the woman in the time it takes the police to show up.
Logistically, its a ridiculous solution, because if we really cared about protecting women from rape we would have more police officers walking about, more community policing, more restrictions placed upon offenders, more awareness and teaching campaigns about sexual assaults.
Also: the potential for abuse is pretty large. We would have a large portion of women monitored. Wonder who could get that information to find out where a particular woman was, or where any woman was, in order to do the very crime the bracelet was meant to prevent.
Really, all the rapist has to do is throw the bracelet away, push her into his car, drive away and then proceed to punish her for having the bracelet in the first place.
Very odd solution and it does make me angry that we have to have women wear the bracelets. Why no put bracelets on men so we know where they are at all times - with a button on it women can push if they are being raped - hopefully someone will come before the deed is done. Sounds as reasonable to me...

I like the idea, especially if society is not going to catch up to the idea that women should not be assaulted/harassed as fast as we would like (like yesterday). I think that if we did not live in a society that put the onus on women all the time, the fact that this does require the woman to go out of her way to get a bracelet, wear it, and use it, would be less offensive. Also, if a some familiar feminist designed it and introduced the program as a way to empower us to fight back against assaulters, we may all have had a slightly less negative gut reaction. If it actually makes people safer, then yeah! If folks are going to focus less on prevention and educating men because now women can just wear a bracelet, then big boos.

"Hey: this all assumes that there will be help available within moments of the bracelet being pressed and that police will consider it a priority. Given what happens with domestic violence calls, rarely are women victims of what are considered crimes against women considered priority.
Also: if a rapists sees the woman push the button, sees the bracelet, he could become very angry and hurt/kill the woman in the time it takes the police to show up.
Logistically, its a ridiculous solution, because if we really cared about protecting women from rape we would have more police officers walking about, more community policing, more restrictions placed upon offenders, more awareness and teaching campaigns about sexual assaults.
Also: the potential for abuse is pretty large. We would have a large portion of women monitored. Wonder who could get that information to find out where a particular woman was, or where any woman was, in order to do the very crime the bracelet was meant to prevent.
Really, all the rapist has to do is throw the bracelet away, push her into his car, drive away and then proceed to punish her for having the bracelet in the first place.
Very odd solution and it does make me angry that we have to have women wear the bracelets. Why no put bracelets on men so we know where they are at all times - with a button on it women can push if they are being raped - hopefully someone will come before the deed is done. Sounds as reasonable to me..."

1. They could increase the number of police in addition to instituting these bracelets. Meanwhile, increasing police presence alone won't be enough because, as has been pointed out, acquaintance rape is the norm. Unless police can see into homes all of a sudden, most acquaintance rapes will continue to go on under their noses due to their tendency to occur within private residences and with the victim under the influence of substances that preclude strong self-defense and the use of a weapon. Under these circumstances, a hand-held alarm is the only thing that can call for help.

2. The idea that the rapist could become angry is a mark against any attempt to save yourself, from self-defense to mace to even yelling. Fact is, it's this very idea of the woman as powerless to do anything that prevents some women from acting at all and, later, leads to victim blaming as police and acquaintances ask, "Why didn't you do anything?"

The way I see it, you can't let your actions be determined by how a rapist is going to react. The sort of person who is going to kill you for signaling the police is the type to kill you for anything, and the suggestion that you could somehow invite a harsher attack is, frankly, victim blaming.

3. There's nothing that says the bracelets will be personalized and always active, such that you can track down a specific woman at any given time. This isn't Lo-Jack for ladies. This is new form of the Medical Alert Bracelet.

4. Yes, there are ways of circumventing the effectiveness of the bracelet, as is the case with every safety tool that has been invented since the discovery that you could throw rocks at sabretooth tigers. That doesn't mean things like this don't help, though.

The very fact that stranger rape goes from having to take someone off the street to having to ditch a bracelet and then shove someone into a car means that stranger rape is a great deal harder and less likely. Additionally, in the case of acquaintance rape, women would now have a way of registering the word "no" with their attacker and a local police department, effectively registering lack of consent in a loud, clear, time-stamped manner that prevents accusations of retroactively removing consent or the suggestion that the man somehow misinterpreted the signals or didn't hear the word no.

As for the issue of removal, I think a simple three digit combination lock would mean that nobody can remove the thing except for the woman herself. Yes, this seems a little absurd, but I promise you that demand for these things among men will be considerable as well and that, eventually, everyone would be wearing these safety bracelets in the same way everyone has a smoke detector, cell phone, and a list of allergies to medication on hand. Fear of Big Brother will prevent fears of monitoring from ever coming about, meanwhile, and we'll all be that much safer.

No. I would never wear a rape bracelet. For every woman who would feel safe enough to walk where she pleases (yay) there will be a woman who is creeped the fuck out by being constantly told she is not a free person but a potential rape victim. And there's nothing I hate more than this idea being justified with the "That's the real world, honey" argument. Because it's not. real. (see paragraph three!) ... at least until we make it real by enforcing ideas of women's proper space.

The person who said men are more likely to be assaulted outside the home is right on. In fact, that's precisely what I hate about measures like these - it perpetuates the fear many women are taught about occupying space in the public sphere. The rape bracelet is (besides its "intended" function) essentially a visitor's pass to the outside world.

I'm not very comfortable with guns, but for the sake of comparison, I have to say Alice's approach seems amazingly more sensible. For one thing, it's relying on yourself instead of men to come and help you, when they can spare a moment from their important work. For another, a gun is not something you wear on your body to identify your supposed safety status regarding rape (which is so ew I can't even believe it's considered okay).

Uh, by paragraph three, I meant two. I can has proofreading? :(

I would wear this bracelet. Ellestar and others have made brilliant points above about the police's response to this braclet, but I've been assaulted before and I will do anything in my power to stop it happening again.

I suspect that the point of the device is really to create a deterrent, so in effect it does target the rapist.

This idea (although it may help some people feel more safe and that's great) is just another risk reduction tactic like a rape whistle or taking self-defense classes. It's totally unfair to put the responsibility on the survivor to prevent the assault. It could turn into one of things were people say "oh she wasn't wearing her rape bracelet so it's her fault she got raped." And wearing this bracelet clearly wouldn't stop rape from happening only alert the police once it's started.
The only real way to prevent sexual assault from happening is to educate people about this issue and change the way society thinks and talks about survivors and rape. Education is the real prevention - not a rape bracelet.

I'd like to see anything that proves that education has any effect at all on sexual assault rates, much less an effect that surpasses being able to access emergency services.

Additionally, I'd like to see anything that suggests that victim blaming will become more of a problem with a system like this in place.

Finally, I'd like to know why self-defense training and weapons are deemed as the ideal means of protection against sexual assault when the most common form, acquaintance rape under the influence of alcohol, precludes the effective use of either measures.

Lot's of people are saying that we need to focus on the rapists and teach the rapist not to rape, or something along these lines. But how exactly do you teach a rapists or potential rapists not to rape. Take a theif, do you go around teaching theifs that they need to earn money before they can take things, and does this make them not a theif anymore. If most rape is acquantence rape, then the fact that the rapists knows the person, is possible friends or a relative of the person, and will be socially outcaste (hopefully) if they rape the person, if all this doesn't stop the rape from happening, then really, what will?

Just look at everything the government has done to educate people about drug use and drunk driving. Just look at the moral education we have hammered into our heads from day one. Just look at rapists who, presented with the evidence that they are in the wrong presented in the form of their victim's face, persist nonetheless. All the advertising, education, and first hand evidence in the world won't stop a man from doing what he is inclined to do.

The problem isn't a lack of education. The problem is that rapists don't care who they hurt and don't think there'll be consequences. Unfortunately, the only thing we can do is increase the chance of consequences and, after the fact, provide therapy to try and instill some empathy into these people after they're caught and before they're released from prison.

I'd like to see anything that proves that education has any effect at all on sexual assault rates, much less an effect that surpasses being able to access emergency services.

Also:

But how exactly do you teach a rapists or potential rapists not to rape.

(I'm assuming you mean rape prevention education.)

Rothbaum, E., & Siverman, J. (2007). The effect of a college sexual assault prevention program on first-year students' victimization rates. Journal of American College Health, 55, 283-290.

Additionally, I'd like to see anything that suggests that victim blaming will become more of a problem with a system like this in place.

Since it's not in place yet, it's impossible to have a study that tests social reaction to women who have experienced sexual assault while wearing the bracelet.

I'm not saying that victim blaming will become more of a problem, but that this bracelet, if not worn or used correctly, is another avenue for rape deniers to take in refusing to believe sexual assault is a common crime.

I was basing my prediction on years of experience in asking women about the reactions they receive after disclosing sexual assault to others.

However, if you want, I can post a good 20-30 citations of the asshole things people do and say in aggregates of survivors of sexual assault that are victim-blaming.

Wanna carry a gun because you're afraid of being attacked? See this site: http://www.vpc.org/studies/myth.htm
or:
http://www.defendu.com/wsdi/do_you_need_a_weapon.htm

And I wouldn't be so quick to play down the effectiveness of self-defense. The example of the woman from shakespearssister is grotesque and fucked, but also, I would think and hope, not the norm.
And in hopes of steering this argument away from "blaming the victim," I'm going to say that people (and I mean all people) who are concerned about rape and personal violence should consider self-defense training in spite of examples to the contrary. Self defense is about not being victimized and retaining control of your body. I train in Krav Maga because I have been assaulted, and the first thing I was taught was, "if you're attacked by a person with a knife, you're going to get cut. But now you'll get to decide how and where." So when some on this thread say education and changing society is the only way to prevent rape, I'll agree in the long term for sure. In the short term, I'll take my hand to hand combat classes, thank you very much.

"Rothbaum, E., & Siverman, J. (2007). The effect of a college sexual assault prevention program on first-year students' victimization rates. Journal of American College Health, 55, 283-290."

Results: Students who had no exposure were more likely to report that they were sexually assaulted during their first year of college (odds ratio = 1.74, 95% confidence interval [1.32-2.29]). Results suggest that the program was effective for males and females, but not for students with a prior history of sexual assault victimization. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual students were at increased risk for victimization as compared with heterosexual students, and students who drank alcohol or engaged in binge drinking were at increased risk as compared with alcohol abstinent students. Conclusions: Findings suggest that this program had a positive effect on victimization rates for certain sub-groups of students. (Contains 1 figure and 3 tables.)

I don't know if you realized this, but the study you cited speaks in favor of the sort of educating potential victims, the sort of measure some people here would write off as putting the onus on the women and failing to target the men.

And yeah, I don't see how another avenue by which victim blaming can occur is so objectionable when victim blaming will occur no matter what. In the end, an additional avenue doesn't change much at all, save the content of the blaming and the odds of being put in position to be blamed (obviously, if your odds of getting attacked go down, your odds of getting blamed go down).

And again, I maintain that victim blaming is a separate problem that needs to be attacked directly by changing police protocol and the content of news reports, both of which can be controlled in a way individual people cannot.

"Just look at rapists who, presented with the evidence that they are in the wrong presented in the form of their victim's face, persist nonetheless. All the advertising, education, and first hand evidence in the world won't stop a man from doing what he is inclined to do."

And since you've proven that education doesn't work, what then?

"Finally, I'd like to know why self-defense training and weapons are deemed as the ideal means of protection against sexual assault when the most common form, acquaintance rape under the influence of alcohol, precludes the effective use of either measures."

I agree with the weapon problem, but then again I'm taught to use a weapon of opportunity. But I don't see how alcohol and knowing the attacker precludes the use of self defense. I'll defer to ellestar on this one, but isn't the main problem that occurs with acquaintance rape, is that women feel afraid, unsure and ashamed to confront the attacker during the deed, and especially after when having to prove to all their mutual friends that it did in fact occur? Otherwise, I still say fuck the fucker up.

See also: http://www.defenduniversity.blogspot.com/

And especially the part where Meredith Emerson's murderer said: "She wouldn't stop fighting. And yelling at the same time. So I needed to both control her and silence her."

In cases where alcohol is a tool for date rape, and not merely present, one would expect to be so lost to inebriation that it wouldn't be terribly easy to employ self-defense techniques or properly aim a can of mace or a gun. In such cases, the most you COULD do is hit a button on a bracelet.

Being only a little drunk or completely sober, however, would definitely give one the ability to fight back with the method of choice.

Given that, perhaps I should clarify. I'm not opposed to self-defense. I'm just opposed to people who say, "Fuck these bracelets, which don't solve the problem completely. Self-defense is the way to go."

Self-defense training and weapons don't solve the problem completely either, and in regards to the most common form of rape (as I understand it to be), one may find herself unable to employ either. That's why I think something like this is a good idea, despite the flaws in presentation. It answers a deficiency in other measures (it can be used under most circumstances, records your lack of consent clearly so you cannot be blamed for mixed signals or changing your mind afterwards, and attracts attention no matter where you are), and makes us safer in general and brings us closer to where we should be.

I'm not saying that victim blaming will become more of a problem, but that this bracelet, if not worn or used correctly, is another avenue for rape deniers to take in refusing to believe sexual assault is a common crime.

That may be true, but unless you think that this service would do absolutely nothing to reduce rape rates, that's a pretty weak argument. Also, it seems like such a system would offer some reporting capabilities which would tend to undercut that argument as well. I mean, adoption/use stats for such a service would likely provide positive evidence of how common these crimes are, no?

That's good because mine was the third post on this thread that said the bracelets were just like any other prevention alert devices. I also indeed think that since rape isn't going anywhere, despite our best efforts to educate, (almost)any method we can employ is a step in the right direction. Having said that, and knowing that acquaintance rape is so common, I wonder if the bracelet would be "too" proactive for some women (as is throwing an elbow) when the fear and shame level is so high.

I don't know if you realized this, but the study you cited speaks in favor of the sort of educating potential victims, the sort of measure some people here would write off as putting the onus on the women and failing to target the men.

You asked for anything that proves that education has any effect at all on sexual assault rates. I was just obliging you. And it was aimed at all students, not just the women.

I've never said that women shouldn't be pro-active and find ways to help themselves feel safe whether that be through education, self-defense training, whistles, etc. My objection, like Jessica's above, is that the focus seems to be only on the ways that women have to prevent someone from raping them rather than finding ways to keep people from being rapists in the first place. Even women who do "all the right things" get raped. And if a woman veers from "all the right things" in any way, she's blamed.

Blaming is very harmful for survivors of sexual assault. In some circles, it's referred to as the "second victimization."

That may be true, but unless you think that this service would do absolutely nothing to reduce rape rates, that's a pretty weak argument.

I have said that I think this service will not do anything to reduce the rates of sexual assaults.

Also, it seems like such a system would offer some reporting capabilities which would tend to undercut that argument as well. I mean, adoption/use stats for such a service would likely provide positive evidence of how common these crimes are, no?

If it's "just like calling 911," then no. These bracelets will not do anything in increasing the reporting of sexual assault.

First of all, I highly doubt these would be used (or even worn) in places where acquaintance (or other known offenders) rape occurs.

As the OP says, this is for women traveling through "bad" neighborhoods. Therefore, I assume this is for stranger rape. Stranger rape is already the most reported type of sexual assault to police and I doubt a bracelet would increase sexual assault reporting.

Also, for anyone interested in the relationship between fighting back and passive resistance, here's a great article:

Ullman, S., & Knight, R. (1991). A Multivariate Model for Predicting Rape and Physical Injury Outcomes During Sexual Assaults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 724-731.

Here's the abstract:

The relation of situational factors, offender aggression, and victim resistance to women's sexual abuse and physical injury during sexual assaults was analyzed using police reports and court testimonies of 274 women who either avoided rape or were raped. Hierarchical multiple regression showed that after situational factors were partialed out, (a) women's screaming/yelling was related to less severe sexual abuse, and (b) offender physical aggression was related to increased physical injury. An a priori model of the interrelations among offense components and injury outcomes was tested with path analysis. More forceful victim resistance was directly related to less severe sexual abuse even when partialing level of situational danger and the level of offender aggression. In contrast, more forceful victim resistance was not related to the level of physical injury when both the level of situational danger and the level of offender aggression in the assault were controlled.

I'd rather have a stabbin' knife. Vigilante justice!

My objection, like Jessica's above, is that the focus seems to be only on the ways that women have to prevent someone from raping them rather than finding ways to keep people from being rapists in the first place.

Kind of a false dichotomy, though. It is possible to both, after all.

I do not condone or overlook the racist and classist statements made by Jabes1966 or qwerty. I find them reprehensible.

They are worth bringing up, in my opinion, as a real-world lesson on the intersection of -isms. It is additionally my responsibility to acknowledge them if I hope for interracial solidarity within feminism.

I do not judge ellestar for her reserved response.

I apologize for this brief detraction from the rape-bracelet conversation.

Kind of a false dichotomy, though. It is possible to both, after all.

Then why aren't both equally encouraged?

Then why aren't both equally encouraged?

Good question. But to turn it back on you, how does trashing this program make it likelier that programs you favor will be supported?

Because turning back a question is always much easier than answering it.

Why won't you answer ellestar's question?

But to turn it back on you, how does trashing this program make it likelier that programs you favor will be supported?

Instead of wasting their time and money on yet one more thing women can do, maybe they would try to innovate ways to include men into the discussion on sexual assault and what they can also do as individuals to stop sexual violence.

“Then once rapists get hip to the rape bracelets, they can just take them off of the woman, or force the woman to take the bracelet off. Not a perfect solution at all. I would encourage women to take self defense classes and carry pepper spray.� - GottaBeMe

Who said it was perfect? It is simply one more layer of protection for those interested in carrying it.

�Look, nobody's saying there's anything wrong with rape whistles, self-defense classes, etc. The problem is when the government is failing to protect people, and the solution offered BY THE GOVERNMENT, instead of, you know, better policing or a better justice system, is a rape bracelet.� – Latinist

The idea of the bracelet is to facilitate better policing.

“Is any other violent crime that could happen to a man less terrible than rape inflicted upon a woman?
Sexual violation, whether it be on a man or a woman is more terrible than other violent crimes (minus homicide), yes.� - Ellestar

If this was meant as a blanket statement, then I have to say I think you are wrong. It is way off topic, but since you brought it up: I can definitely think of violent acts against me to which I would prefer to be raped (given the awful choice).

"You know, I'm all for innovative ways to help stop rape, but something about this doesn't sit right with me..."

"I'd say it is better to be safe with a bracelet instead of being unsafe but proving a point"

What on earth would this device do to make women safer in any sense of that word? To imply that women would be somehow safer with the bracelet than without assumes that the bracelet would somehow "curb" or "prevent" rape in the first place. How, exactly would it do that? Are we expecting a rapist to see the bracelet and back off (Oh, you're wearing a braclet so I'll go rape someone else)? Assuming the woman had the time, the opportunity, and the presence of mind to push the button, before the fact, how long will it take law enforcement to respond? Long enough for the rapist to complete the deed and run? I suppose it might be useful in that it will lead law enforcement to the victim after the fact, but it might just as likely lead them to the location of a corpse. The MYTH that such a piece of technology leads to safety would likely lead to an increase in the incidence of rape simply in virtue of the fact that women, believing they are more secure because they are wearing this bracelet, might actually place themselves in harms way.

i can see clearly now - You don't think a criminal is more likely to run away when he knows the police are on there way?

If this was meant as a blanket statement, then I have to say I think you are wrong.

It was in response to a direct question. And I also provided a citation that supports the statement in a later comment.

Individual experience may be subjective and the various things that might happen to you may seem worse (I'm imagining the Saw movies as to what you think would be worse than rape), but the reality is that the data show that, overall, sexual assault has more negative psychological ramifications than non-sexual violent crimes.

"there" should be "their"

Qwerty, please stop derailing. I'm appalled at all the rape apologism I'm seeing on this thread.

------------

I have nothing more to say.

But really, enough with the ridiculous rape apologist labels.

I'm sorry I'm getting heated, but come on - I shouldn't have to wear an ankle bracelet like frigging a criminal in order to feel safe. These are our streets, our trains, our public spaces - and we deserve to walk freely around them without being raped. You want to help curb sexual assault? Here's a crazy idea - start with with the perpetrators.

Posted by: Jessica

It would also be nice if police and security guards didn't have to use guns, clubs and mace. But they do, because for all the anti-crime programs and laws passed, there will always be a certain number of fucktards who insist on carrying out violent attacks. At that point, the only things that will stop them are (a) the use of force or (b) the threat of force.

It would be nice to "start with the perpetrators" with education and so on. But I thinks it's even more important to "finish" with perpetrators by allowing and encouraging the use of force to stop them (including deadly force) and locking them up for life or executing them.

Kind of a false dichotomy, though. It is possible to both, after all.

Then why aren't both equally encouraged?

Posted by: ellestar

Because laws, education, and awareness won't help when some scumbag comes charging at you with a knife in one hand and his cock in the other. An alarm of some sort (bracelet, whistle) or a weapon just might.

I look at it as a case of both/and rather than either/or.

I look at it as a case of both/and rather than either/or.

Then why aren't both encouraged?

Probably because not enough people are demanding education. If public opinion supported education as much as it supports better access to emergency services, though, then both could be put into effect.

Also, if a private entity took education upon itself rather than attempting to shore up support for it within the government, you could achieve the same result of having both measures in place.

Ultimately, the problem isn't that there isn't enough room for two separate things. Rather, the problem is that education is a long-term solution which has little to support its claims of efficacy and no examples of assaults where, upon examination, it can be proven that education would have changed the outcome (unlike these bracelets, which have statistics that support calling attention to yourself by any means as the best way to stop or lessen an attack).

Then why aren't both encouraged?

Because the use of alarms and weapons is the last line of defense when education and awareness fail. It's the same way with home invasion. Neighborhood watches are a good idea to try to stop robberies before they happen. But once an armed, determined thug decides to barge into your home to rob you (or worse), your last, best defense is to raise an alarm and/or fight them off.

ellestar – I tried googling your source study, but could not find it. I found some abstracts on a study they did during that year, but they did not mention your numbers and none mentioned specific circumstances of rape or violence experienced by the study’s participants. Violence can take numerous forms and have numerous effects. Rape can also take numerous forms and have numerous effects. For example, I would rather get drunk beyond the ability to consent and have my girlfriend take advantage of me than get punched in the face. To take it in a different direction, I would rather be raped by an STD free stranger than have someone break my back or burn me badly. I say again, if yours was a blanket statement, I have to disagree. Anyway, this is way off topic and comes down to personal feelings as opposed to any objective fact, so I’ll let it go.

So we can't go around putting bracelets on potential rapists just because they might rape, education of perpetrators is virtually useless, and putting bracelets on women puts the blame/onus on them if the a) don't wear it or b) wear it at all. So seriously: What is the alternative? I really mean it. What is the ALTERNATIVE that we have already at hand that isn't WAITING for stats to come out on the effectiveness of alarm systems, HOPING that men stop being violent because they went to a training seminar one time, or WISHING for governments to catch up with the times and start prosecuting with an iron fist? Because while I fully agree with the sentiment that we must start with the perpetrators, what does a girl do in the meantime?

“The simple fact is 99% of the places that a woman would fear being raped, a man would also fear for his safety.� - Jabes1966

I have to call BS on this one. I don’t fear for my safety (usually) in bars, at parties, ect. There are numerous places where (I am told) women might fear being raped where I would have little reason to worry. I understand your statement as it pertains to walking through a bad neighborhood, but in the future I would make sure to qualify your remark better.

I would definitely wear one. It would make me feel a lot safer, and perhaps if men knew that women had them, they would be less likely to attempt an attack.

Because while I fully agree with the sentiment that we must start with the perpetrators, what does a girl do in the meantime?

Posted by: adminassistant

A CC permit and a gun to go with it. I'd recommend something in .45 calibre, preferably with hollowpoints.

I'm not so sure this is as practical as it sounds. When such a device is used to track offenders, there's no emergency. When it's used to keep an eye on the elderly, the emergency is usually medical *meaning no other person present). In the case of a "rape bracelet", the woman would be using it in the middle of an attack. Assuming that the alarm button is hard to push, since you wouldn't want it to go off accidentally, would she even be able to push it during an attack? Perhaps not until after it is over, in which case it wouldn't make her any safer than carrying a cell phone.

That said, these bracelets are supposed to be for women passing through isolated areas, so how close will the nearest police station be? There doesn't seem to be a great likelihood that the police will get there in time to stop the assault and/or catch the attacker.

And it is humiliating to wear anything that allows other people to track you...I'm sorry to say, I don't trust the government that much. It could even provide more fodder for victim blaming..."we can see from our records that she goes out there every day on her way home from work by herself, so what did she expect would happen?"

And while it does shift responsibility onto the woman to protect herself, to a certain extent, we all bear this responsibility. It seems to me to be similar to guarding oneself against assault in general, or burglary, or a car crash: you do what you can.

The simple solution to both the woman-as-victim-blaming and the whole issue of "demonizing men" is market it as a device for *anyone* who is concerned for their safety, for *anyone* to set off if they are in physical danger.

80% of all murder victims are men. Of course 90% of all murderers are men, but this is probably small comfort for the guy who is killed by another guy because he pulled over to talk about a traffic accident and the road-raging other party beat him to death. I mean I'm pretty sure he wasn't thinking, "Well, thank god I'm a man and this guy killing me is also a man, now at least this isn't gendered violence."

If it's a device solely for women to prevent rape, then the whole victim-blaming thing starts up. But if it's a device for *anyone* to prevent *any* violent crime to their person, there would be too many men wearing them in bad neighborhoods for anyone to try "She was wearing a rape bracelet! Obviously she knew going out to bars and drinking was a bad idea, so why did she do it?" it would be a *crime* bracelet, not a rape bracelet.

As for tracking -- if it only transmits when you press the button, then no one can track you without your consent. It's kind of like saying you don't dare carry a cell phone if you're a victim of DV because then your abuser can track you. Well, technically, it's possible, but *only when you make a call.*

I think the principle is an excellent idea, totally marred by the assumption that only women ever suffer from violent crimes. Given how often my husband has been physically assaulted, I'd feel better if he had one of these things when he went out to the bar at night, 'cause he's a skinny legally blind guy. And no, I'm not trivializing rape -- obviously rape is much worse than being beaten up, but being beaten up isn't *good* either, and if the cops would quickly come in response to a man hitting the panic button, they'd do the same for a woman. They wouldn't go "Oh, it's just a woman hitting the button on her rape bracelet, probably she's overreacting or mad at her boyfriend;" let men carry the tool too, and police will respond to all calls as if they might be serious.

NBTurk:
Ha ha, sure, so the rapist can disarm you and then use it on you. Shitty plan for girls who aren't trained in hand to hand weapons removal.

Rape can also take numerous forms and have numerous effects. For example, I would rather get drunk beyond the ability to consent and have my girlfriend take advantage of me than get punched in the face. To take it in a different direction, I would rather be raped by an STD free stranger than have someone break my back or burn me badly. I say again, if yours was a blanket statement, I have to disagree.

It's very easy to speak in hypothetical terms: "I would feel X if X happened." Maybe you would. I was pointing out that in people's reported experience with sexual assault and other violent crimes (rather than imaginings of sexual assault) the data show that the negative reactions by the victims was greater and more prolonged for sexual assault victims.

I've said in the posts that individual experiences do vary and the individual is subjective, but in the aggregate of people who have actually experienced what you've only imagined, sexual assault is worse.

I didn't just imagine the first scenario. I think I will trust my own preferences over a very vague claim made on the internet about a study I have no access to. I would need to see both their methodology and how they define sexual assault and other violent crimes before I could even begin to know how their findings might change my opinions.

How does one prevent men from raping women?

We cannot control other people, only try to influence them, so I think that taking necessary precautions in protecting yourself is great.

Noname, in a world where there is absolutely no stigma on the victim for being raped, and where it is treated by everyone around the victim as if it were another violent crime, then yes, it would probably be better in most circumstances to be raped than to be beaten. In fact most people faced with the choice right in front of them *do* choose to be raped rather than beaten (or rather, what they're probably choosing is to be raped rather than beaten and probably also raped).

But we live in a world where rape victims are blamed for their own attack.

Let's say you have a choice between being mugged or being beaten up. anyone would pick being mugged, right? But let's imagine that as soon as you're mugged, people say, "Well, why were you in that neighborhood? Didn't you expect you'd be mugged?" and "Well, you were wearing an expensive wristwatch. Weren't you just asking to be mugged?" and "You probably weren't mugged at all. You probably gave the guy your wallet on purpose because you were drunk, and now you regret it and you're crying mugging." and "Most men who claim to be mugged are actually dirty filthy whores who give their money away to anyone who asks, which makes them cheap, disposable people. I think you're actually one of them." and "I'm not sure I want to continue to give you the regular money I give you in the form of a paycheck, because I don't know how I feel about you having money violently taken away from you." and "Hey, baby, how about some of that cash? I hear you give it away!"

The cops treat you like you are probably lying, and certainly wasting their time. If your mugger goes to trial, he won't be convicted, because his lawyer will bring up that you donate money to causes all the time and once you even gave a homeless bum a $5, so obviously you are the kind of person who gives money away and therefore you're lying about being mugged. Friends of the mugger accuse you of being a filthy whore who's trying to ruin a decent man's life just because you gave him some money. People who normally accept money from you look at you funny because they know you've been victimized and they don't know how to handle it.

Now imagine that it wasn't your money, it was your bodily integrity, your control of your very self. Which would make it a lot worse than just money.

Do you see now why, in general, rape produces much worse psychological effects than other physical assaults?

It is true, most of us would prefer to be raped than set on fire, but that's rarely the choice. Men are threatened with a great deal of random physical violence in the form of fistfights; women are threatened with rape. Rape is almost always worse than being punched a couple of times. And if you got punched a couple of times no one thinks you wanted it, did it on purpose, were asking for it, should have known better, or are lying about it.

I think I will trust my own preferences over a very vague claim made on the internet about a study I have no access to.

I've been punched, too (yay for sibling rivalry and sports). I can tell you I would prefer that to the heartbreak and betrayal of my boyfriend taking advantage of me.

As for my vague claim, I've spent some time trying to track down an internet accessible citation, but have only found journals that need subscriptions and a book containing the Resick article. Here's the info on the book:

Victims of Crime. Edited Davis, Lurigio, & Skogan.

Also, what AlaraJRogers said.

Ellestar – Thank you for trying. You seem to have researched this thoroughly, and I am not insinuating that you are being dishonest in any way. I still would need to investigate this further before I could change my mind. As for the heartbreak of being taken advantage of: by the definition of some here, I have been raped many times and have yet to experience serious regrets.

AlaraJRogers – Sure, if you describe a horrible rape scenario vs. a tame violent act, I would prefer the violent act. If I describe a tame rape scenario and a horrible violent act, I would prefer the rape. That was my point. The two concepts cover such wide ranges of human interaction that I do not think it is possible to say that one is worse than another as a concept (this is setting aside the fact that most rapes would be considered violent acts, anyway).

Well, first of all, I think the bracelets would PREVENT, very very few rapes from occurring... They COULD potentially frighten off an attacker, but that doesn't seem very likely to me. I have no data on the length of a typical rape attack, but I am guessing it's a very short period of time.

The purpose of the bracelet isn't to prevent the crime from occurring at all. The point is a 'one click' method to alert the authorities to a) the occurrence of a violent crime, and b) your precise location.

The response time of the police, what they DO with the perpetrator when he's caught, and IF (or how long before) they let the person out of prison are all completely different problems that indeed need to be addressed. This is not to say they are low priority problems, in fact I would say all of these things need to be worked on at the same time, and the later problems are likely the most important ones to worry about, given the information I've gleaned from this thread about Italian Justice and policing.

Education is only effective for those potential rapists who actually CARE about how their potential victim might feel. The simple fact, deducted by my own personal/private manner of reasoning, seems to be that those who are committing rape are not the kind of people who are going to care, thus education will only very minimally impact the issue, and the effects, if any, will be seen only in the distant future, educational impact takes time (sometimes generations) to turn into real, notable effect on a society.

Even if education was effective in a lot of cases... No matter WHAT you do, SOME people are going to commit these crimes... It will never be fully eliminated, unfortunately.

The bracelets should be set up so that they are not individually unique in any way... They should all send the same signals, and should have no such identifiable 'tracking' code, and should only send the signal if activated. It sounds like that's how they're set up already, but some people were worried about it. Then, some people will always be worried about Big Brother no matter what assurances they have to the contrary, but that is their prerogative and I hold no judgment in that regard, you never know, maybe they're right. They can choose a different way to alert the police if they want. (but do you really think the government can't already track you on your cell phone?)

If you want to protect yourself, or prevent the rape entirely, you should not rely on the bracelet. You should implement several different layers of protection. The bracelet provides quick communication with authorities, a can of mace is a direct deterrent and does not work in every case, a handgun can also be a deterrent and/OR a weapon to fight off the attacker but also may not work in every case, self defense is another deterrent/weapon which also may fail to work in some cases. From my viewpoint, there is no sure-fire way to prevent it from happening. Humans adapt quickly to environmental effects and they will find new ways to commit the crime if they really want to. Just like computer viruses/exploits, fix one, and here comes 3 more through a different, previously unforeseen hole in the security blanket.

What I'm really concerned about here is the idea that, somehow, you are going to prevent rapists from ever coming into existence. This seems to be an ideal solution, for sure, but entirely unrealistic. In 4 days of posting, not one person has submitted anything that even comes close to appearing like an effective way to do this, personally I'm not sure one exists. Some humans are just evil, and uncaring.

Whether you like the bracelet idea or not. You can NOT expect that rape is just going to go away. An ostrich with it's head in the sand will still be killed by the hungry cheetah, whether it wants to believe it's there or not. I'd rather be an ostrich with a gps-enabled hot-line to some cheetah poachers, and put up a fight to survive till rescue comes, than not. Even if the poachers are a long way away, they still have a much better chance of tracking the cheetah down if they're notified quickly and thus possibly preventing that cheetah from causing harm to anyone else in the future.

Your bracelet might not protect YOU, but it COULD help protect what might have become that rapists next victim.

(Sorry for all the animal reference, I'm in no way trying to minimize the seriousness of the topic in using them.)

I would also like to comment on blaming the victim. The fact that this happens at all bothers me greatly. I can see, perhaps, suggesting against putting yourself in certain situations in the future (but only in a very careful manner as to not further traumatize the victim in a way that could be seen as 'second victimization'), but to say anyone deserved to have that happen to them or 'were asking for it' is completely ridiculous. The 'you should have known better' line is not quite as bad, but really it's not a constructive method of handling the situation or the person's emotional state either.

THIS is precisely where education could help. Educate the people who are dealing with the victims and perpetrators to be more aware of the problem, it's effect on involved parties, and the mentality of a rapist and recidivism information (to help in sentencing the convicted). These people are (or should be) MUCH more likely to actually CARE about the victim than the would-be rapist, and there could be an actual effect seen if everyone knows how serious it is and treats it that way.

...by the way...
Sometimes mugging victims ARE blamed for walking around in 'bad neighborhoods' with valuable looking items on their person.
Sometimes people who get beaten up ARE blamed for being in the wrong place, or hanging with the wrong crowd.
Victim Blaming is NOT limited to rape. However, I can definitely see how it could have a much harsher and longer lasting effect in that situation. It's a problem that needs addressing across the board.

“Sometimes mugging victims ARE blamed for walking around in 'bad neighborhoods' with valuable looking items on their person.� - TheBlackPanther

If I walked around in a bad neighborhood with an expensive watch, it would be a stupid move weather I was mugged or not. If I was mugged, however, acknowledgement of this stupidity would not detract from the culpability of the mugger.

I agree, noname, good point.

Ha ha, sure, so the rapist can disarm you and then use it on you. Shitty plan for girls who aren't trained in hand to hand weapons removal.

Posted by: adminassistant

I don't know what the laws are in your neck of the woods, but most conceal carry permits require extensive training in the use of guns, including how to use them before the rapist so much as lays a finger on you. If he's face down on the ground with a bullet hole in his head, he's not taking anything away from you, nor is he going to rape anyone -ever.

How many times do you hear about police officers getting their weapons taken away by attackers? It's EXTREMELY rare.Compare that to how many thugs are scared off by an intended victim brandishing a firearm. Then compare it to how many thugs are shot by their intended victims. The balance is overwhelmingly in favor of (a) being trained how to use a gun, (b) having a gun, and (c) shooting the fucktards dead.

It's not perfect, and I understand that many people prefer not to use guns. However, shooting a rapist is an effective form of self defense even if it isn't perfect.