Self-Defense or Undermining the Self? Exploring the Possibilities and Limitations of a Novel Anti-Rape Technology

Abstract

Despite decades of feminist-inspired law reforms, rape remains highly prevalent. While many continue to fight for broad cultural and institutional changes, some argue that more immediate interventions are required. Self-defense techniques represent a key strategy of resistance to rape, and empirical evidence suggests that women’s active resistance may hold a number of positive benefits. In this essay, we compare the aims and objectives of a novel anti-rape technology, known as the Rape-aXe, with traditional self-defense techniques, focusing upon the potential for both to resist individual acts of sexual aggression and, more broadly, end gendered sexual violence.

Keywords

rape resistance self-defense

In the face of rape and the apparent inefficacy of criminal justice responses to it, many have looked to alternate means by which to stop this dreadful crime. In the midst of possible responses to rape, ranging from strategies of ever-vigilant freedom-limiting “avoidance” to those focused on clinical, therapeutic, and legal possibilities for raped women (Cermele, 2010), it has been suggested that there remain other options, including techniques of physical resistance.

Tools of, approaches to, and theories on rape resistance have long existed. Key among them is a focus on self-defense practices, a controversial subject in feminist studies and debates over the problem of sexual violence (see, for example, Cahill, 2009; Cermele, 2010; Hall, 2004; Hollander, 2009; McCaughey, 1997). Proponents contend, and a growing body of empirical research demonstrates, that women engaging in physical (e.g., striking back) as well as verbal resistance toward an assailant may realize a number of positive outcomes, including benefits to post-assault well-being. In addition to future acute and chronic physical health problems, “[r]esearch shows that women who have experienced a completed rape have poorer mental health, such as more depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts, than women experiencing attempted rape” (Ullman, 2007, p. 413). Similarly, Brecklin (2008) has found that women who engage in self-defense tactics have enhanced self-esteem and confidence in their ability to keep themselves safe (see also McCaughey, 1997). However, feminist self-defense scholars are also clear that resistance should be an option, not a requirement or responsibility, available to those targeted for sexual assault (e.g., Cermele, 2010).

Traditional methods of physically fighting back are not the only examples of self-defense strategies; carrying pepper spray or using heels as weapons have also been advocated by law enforcement and security staff to deter an assailant (Rees & White, 2012). In addition, new technological interventions aimed at preventing rape are being introduced. One such example made international headlines when Dr. Sonnette Ehlers attempted to promote her anti-rape device, Rape-aXe, during the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa. Frustrated with exceptionally high levels of rape in her country and moved by a raped woman who declared, “[i]f only I had teeth down there” (http://www.antirape.co.za), Dr. Ehlers designed the device as

a latex sheath, which contains razor-sharp barbs . . . [to be] worn in the vagina like a tampon. When the attacker attempts vaginal penetration the barbs attach themselves to the penis, causing great discomfort. The device must be surgically removed, which will result in the positive identification of the attacker and subsequent arrest. (http://www.antirape.co.za)

Dr. Ehlers failed to generate the financial support necessary to manufacture and freely distribute 30,000 barbed condoms to women during this event (which she anticipated would see even greater numbers of violent rapes); however, the effort generated a great deal of media coverage, discussion, and publicity (Rees & White, 2012), which continues till today.

In this essay, we compare Dr. Ehlers’ aims and objectives with those advocating for women’s active resistance to sexual violence. Drawing upon the Rape-aXe website and the literature supporting self-defense techniques, we explore the similarities and differences between the two forms of self-defense. We critically consider three claims made by both sets of advocates: that their approaches prevent rape, provide evidence for criminal investigations, and empower women. In doing this, we think through the utility of each form of self-defense in not only preventing individual incidents of rape but also in the extent of their value for women. Given that technological interventions similar to the Rape-aXe have recently been proposed (e.g., Fem-Defense), we believe this to be a timely reflection on self-defense and sexual assault.

Considering Assumptions and Claims

Prevents Rape

Arguably the primary benefit of active resistance strategies is the potential ability to thwart a rape. In contrast to passivity, several studies have shown that forceful resistance is related to rape avoidance (Ullman, 2007; see also Hollander, 2009; Ullman, 1997). And, despite the claims of some that struggling aggressively is likely to further anger an attacker and lead to greater physical harm (Bownes, O’Gorman, & Sayers, 1991), others argue instead that it may cause him to halt his aggression. Ullman (1997, 2007) has found that increased levels of resistance correlate with a greater likelihood of obstructing a rape (see also Clay-Warner, 2002; Kleck & Sayles, 1990), and that “when the sequence of attack-resistance-injury has been taken into account, studies show that fighting leads to less completed rape and no increase or decrease in physical injury” (Ullman, 2007, p. 414; see also Anger, Ellner, Heyden, & Jackson, 1999; Ullman, 1998; Ullman & Knight, 1991, 1992). In contrast, a lack of forceful verbal and/or physical resistance, such as pleading or begging or becoming immobile, is related to completed rape (Ullman, 2007; Ullman & Knight, 1991; Zoucha-Jensen & Coyne, 1993).

Similarly, Dr. Ehlers believes that the Rape-aXe will aid “in the prevention of rapes” (http://www.antirape.co.za), positing that once the penis is trapped by the Rape-aXe device it will cause so much pain that the assailant will retract, thereby ending the assault. However, we argue that this is a somewhat erroneous and misleading claim. While the Rape-aXe may interrupt the act, the rape is not prevented, given that the penis must be inserted into the vagina for the device to become engaged; in other words, a rape has already occurred.

Beyond her claim regarding rape at the individual level, Dr. Ehlers suggests that the Rape-aXe could reduce rape more broadly over time. She argues that if the Rape-aXe were more commonly used, men would be unsure as to whether any particular woman was wearing the barbed condom and would therefore choose not to risk non-consensual penetration. Although no research has been conducted to determine if the possibility of being trapped by an anti-rape device would act as a deterrent, there remains the problem that embodied in the design of the Rape-aXe is an understanding of rape centered solely on penile penetration of the vagina. However, as has been widely established, both culturally and in the majority of laws worldwide (Du Mont & White, 2007), sexual assault can occur in a number of ways, including unwanted touching and penetration in non-vaginal orifices using also digits or objects (Du Mont & White, 2007). Clearly, the Rape-aXe would do little to prevent such real-life sexual assaults.

Self-defense techniques, however, are designed to address a far wider range of sexual violations, and hold the potential of stopping vaginal penetration before it occurs, rather than only interrupting the rape once it is underway. Ultimately, what is most notable about the differences between the Rape-aXe and various self-defense techniques is that self-defense techniques, unlike the Rape-aXe, apply to resisting all acts associated with sexual assault, not just penile penetration of the vagina, and potentially also create conditions under which a woman might escape prior to the onset of assault. Both strategies, however, suggest that rape might be prevented by raising the risk of immediate harm to the assailant high enough to be a deterrent.

Provides Corroborative Evidence for Criminal Justice

As well as preventing a rape, resistance of any sort may be valuable in helping a woman’s sexual assault case move through the criminal justice system more effectively. Despite the fact that in some countries (e.g., Canada), the laws regarding the requirement for corroborative evidence of resistance as an indicator of non-consent have been abrogated (Parnis & Du Mont, 1999), the legal standard and common practice there and elsewhere nonetheless remains that there should be evidence of victim resistance (Larcombe, 2002; Ullman, 2007). For example, rape kit-based forensic examinations in many jurisdictions attempt to collect biological samples from underneath a woman’s fingernails as evidence of struggle, or administer standard questions regarding whether there was verbal resistance against an assailant (Parnis & Du Mont, 2006). Resistance remains at the center of investigative and legal decision-making, defense attorney questioning, and jury expectations (Ellison & Munro, 2009; Lievore, 2005; Rees, 2010); some argue that one of the benefits of evidence of resistance is that a woman may be treated more sympathetically and her legal case handled more seriously (Anger et al., 1999).

This is the second claim made regarding the potential value of the Rape-aXe: its ability to provide evidence for a future criminal investigation. As the device must be surgically removed from a penis, the assailant would be required to report to a medical professional “which . . . [would] result in the positive identification of the attacker and subsequent arrest” (http://www.antirape.co.za). While this is possible, the reality of rape is that identification of the perpetrator is not the most common problem in securing justice. Research indicates that most sexual assaults are not carried out by strangers (Du Mont & White, 2007). Some data suggest that “at least two thirds of rapes are committed by men known to the victim” (Ullman, 2007, p. 419), and attrition rate studies report that approximately 1 in 10 are stranger assaults (Harris & Grace, 1999; Temkin & Krahé, 2008). Hence, the assertion that the Rape-aXe will “aid in the apprehension of the perpetrator” (http://www.antirape.co.za) may offer a largely negligible promise given the realities of the relationships between survivors and assailants.

Furthermore, in cases where the accused is known to the complainant, the defense will typically argue that the sexual “encounter” was consensual. The issue put forth is not the identity of the assailant, but whether the complainant consented (Keating, 1995). Were the Rape-aXe to become a standard part of women’s resistance practices, it is imaginable that, especially given the proclivity of defense representatives to “whack the complainant” (Comack & Peters, 2005), a woman could be accused of having worn the device to trap a particular man, with the aim of retribution rather than protection. In this regard, an argument might be made that the woman consented to sexual intercourse, for sinister purposes (Rees & White, 2012).

Similarly, the presence of injuries on either or both the victim or the accused, even those from the most violent of attacks, can still be, and often are, explained away by a defendant’s claim of “vigorous consensual intercourse” (Kelly, Lovett, & Regan, 2005) or sadomasochistic play, rather than considered evidence of resistance to assault. In addition, the documentation of any injuries that do appear can be highly ambiguous and, as many forensic medical practitioners have attempted to make clear, only the ways that the injuries were produced can be discerned, not the context in which they were produced (Rees, 2010). Hence, injuries that do result from physical resistance, while perhaps helpful in corroborating the use of force, will generally not provide the conclusive form of evidence for criminal justice that some would believe.

Fosters Women’s Agency and Empowerment

In the section titled, “My mission” on the Rape-aXe website, Dr. Ehlers states,

Governments all over the world still show little commitment to the fight for gender equality and women’s rights. Women and girls have long been targeted due to their standing and value in patriarchal societies. Gender based violence appears to be acceptable . . . My mission is to highlight the plight of these women and give them choice! (http://www.antirape.co.za; bold in the original)

Through making the Rape-aXe device widely available, Dr. Ehlers believes that she would be giving women the choice to take action themselves. The notion of “choice,” however, can be understood in various ways. While it is true that, as with pepper spray in a purse, a woman could choose to either wear or not wear a Rape-aXe condom, were it to become a routinized aspect of women’s lives, it would arguably proffer far less than the freedom associated with real choice. For example, in response to the question “When would I wear Rape-aXe?” Dr. Ehlers responds, “When you think that you may be in a compromising situation” (http://www.antirape.co.za).

While this again is based largely on the assumption of a stranger rape, the reality is that “compromising” situations are often unanticipated. Hence, a woman may feel compelled to have the barbed tampon-like device inserted almost continuously, which raises the specter of a number of concerning medical/physiological ramifications and eclipses any sense of freedom. Moreover, distinctions might well be made between those willing and not willing to wear a Rape-aXe, For example, extrapolating to the realities of criminal justice systems, should a tool such as the Rape-aXe be normalized as a part of the arsenal of defensive devices available to women, there could arise in courts the expectation that its absence implies a woman was a willing participant.

It should also be noted that the assumptions inherent in the Rape-aXe reinforce particular cultural expectations of women as “the weaker sex.” Rather than providing skills or an empowered sense of self, the Rape-aXe requires that a woman initially be overpowered before “fighting back” with a technological response. In contrast, the provision of physical skills that allow the woman herself to resist a man’s assault is the basis of self-defense training. Of course, it is sometimes the case that peoples’ bodies (women’s and men’s) are unable to actively self-defend, something that some self-defense advocates have accepted (Rozee & Koss, 2001; Ullman, 2007); nonetheless, it has been argued persuasively that new narratives emphasizing that women have the choice and capability to defend themselves and overcome male aggression are required (Cermele, 2010). Following the logic of this argument, possessing skills that might be fruitfully engaged seems a more genuine expression of agency and more likely to reap the psychological post-assault benefits than merely inserting a trapping mechanism in one’s vagina.

Some Final Thoughts

Having considered certain of the claims and promises of the Rape-aXe in relation to the documented realities of rape as well as more traditional strategies of resistance, it would seem that those physical self-defense options located within Cermele’s (2010) “middle of the script” (p. 1164) between avoidance and post-assault alternatives and resources share some commonalities, but more significant differences. While the Rape-aXe may hypothetically help identify a stranger perpetrator and halt a rape in progress, more active self-defense approaches offer greater potential benefits, including the ability to respond to a broader range of acts, and increased satisfaction and confidence with respect to having taken a degree of control of the situation.

One overarching commonality between the Rape-aXe and physical resistance/self-defense approaches concerns a tendency to place responsibility on individual women in the fight against rape. First, in terms of the Rape-aXe, although Dr. Ehlers’ “mission statement” begins with a seemingly progressive conception of rape as embedded in social structures of imbalance and inequity for women, it soon morphs into a divergent vision: “My aim with the device is to empower women and promote gender equality. If men can use their bodies—their manhood, as a weapon of attack—well then it’s time for women to do the same!” (http://www.antirape.co.za, bold in the original). Gender inequality is reduced to atomized reciprocal assaults between raping penises and barbed female condoms.

Further underscoring what posits as the de-politicized nature of this technology is her response to why she chooses to place the burden onto individual women to protect themselves:

[w]ho do you expect to protect you? . . . [d]o you have burglar bars and a car alarm? Why don’t you go out and educate robbers not to burgle? Why do you go to such lengths to protect your home and not your body? (http://www.antirape.co.za)

We find it difficult to imagine the widespread introduction of such a device as instrumental, or even mildly effective, in leading to the fundamental social change necessary to tackle violence against women.

With respect to more traditional self-defense practices, the critique of individualization and responsibilization is not new (see Hollander, 2009; Rozee, 2011), nor is the suggestion that this tendency feeds into the de-politicization of rape (Vetten, 2011). Moreover, although improved post-assault mental and emotional health is a valuable effect of resistance, as well as “greater self-confidence, improved body image, a sense of greater control . . . and changed attitudes about gender roles” (Renzetti, 2004, p. 203), it is, at the same time, important to be cognizant of the ways in which a sole focus on individual well-being and personal growth not only risks implying that women can/should change but more broadly signals integration with the growing “therapeutic state” (Humphrey, 2005; Pupavac, 2004), where “injustice is reconceived as psychological [and physical] injury” (Humphrey, 2005, pp. 205-206). This focus on health and healing differs greatly from a political narrative intent on social justice and ending the ubiquitous sexual abuse of women through an emphasis on not only effects but also causes.

While the debate will likely continue over whether the promotion of physical self-defense strategies is problematic in terms of the de-politicization of rape, what we believe to be unequivocally promising are those current scholarly and activist efforts intended to situate traditional resistance approaches within a progressive feminist framework addressing sexual violence such that it does not responsibilize women nor detract from a collective movement toward structural change (see Brecklin & Ullman, 2005; Cermele, 2010; Hollander, 2009; Rozee, 2011). Key to the appeal of this theorizing (and of the proposed and already implemented programs) is the recognition that although long-term change must come, in the interim women continue to be sexually assaulted and efforts must be made to mitigate these violations.

One example of a feminist approach that appears to us to encompass a commitment to rape prevention, both in the short- and long-term, is that developed by Senn (2011). Integrated into the sexual assault resistance training in her program are gendered analyses of rape-supportive culture, male responsibility and, in relation to acquaintance rape in particular, an educational component on “emancipatory sexuality” aimed at expanding knowledge on sexual desires and options to increase women’s “ability to seek out sex they do want, and to reject and actively resist that they do not want” (Senn, 2011, p. 127). Senn herself acknowledges the limits and challenges of this program, including the complexity of relating the content to individual women and their lives while not individualizing the phenomenon itself, as well as the difficulty of incorporating the complex theoretical understanding of the social causes of rape in a limited amount of time. We would add to these the need to take into account the realities of racial and economic differences across the diverse experiences and states of endangerment in women’s lives (Hall, 2004). Nonetheless, with an awareness of the historic work of anti-rape feminists and of the de-politicizing effects of avoidance, therapeutizing, individualizing, and victim-responsibilizing tendencies, we believe that it is time to propel forward a new collective response to sexual violence based on a long-term vision of fundamental societal change, strategies for institutional (e.g., legal, medical) reforms, and contextualized teachings and techniques of physical resistance for women.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Deborah White is an associate professor of sociology at Trent University. Her research interests include the medico-legal responses to sexual assault, the social production of scientific/medical and forensic evidence and expertise, and cultural and gender regulation.

Gethin Rees is a lecturer in criminology at the University of Southampton. His interests include the construction of expert evidence in rape and sexual assault cases, including forensic medical, sleep, and psychological expert evidence; the treatment of survivors of rape and other sexual offenses by criminal justice systems; and masculinity studies and the role of men in feminism.

References

Anger

Ellner

Heyden

Jackson

(1999). Fighting back works: The case for advocating and teaching self-defense against rape. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 70, 31-34.

Bownes

O’Gorman

Sayers

(1991). Rape—A comparison of stranger and acquaintance assaults. Medicine, Science, and the Law, 31, 102-109.

Brecklin

(2008). Evaluation outcomes of self-defense training for women: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 60-76.

Brecklin

Ullman

(2005). Self-defense or assertiveness training and women’s responses to sexual attacks. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 738-762.

Cahill

(2009). In defense of self-defense. Philosophical Papers, 38, 363-380.

Cermele

(2010). Telling our stories: The importance of women’s narratives of resistance. Violence Against Women, 16, 1162-1172.

Clay-Warner

(2002). Avoiding rape: The effects of protective actions and situational factors on rape outcome. Violence and Victims, 18, 691-705.

Comack

Peters

(2005). How the criminal justice system responds to sexual assault survivors: The slippage between “responsibilization” and “blaming the victim. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law, 17, 283-309.

Du Mont

White

(2007). The uses and impacts of medico-legal evidence in sexual assault cases: A global view. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

10.

Ellison

Munro

V. E.

(2009). Turning mirrors into windows? Assessing the impact of (mock) juror education in rape trials. British Journal of Criminology, 49, 363-383.

11.

Hall

(2004). “It can happen to you”: Rape prevention in the age of risk management. Hypatia, 19(3), 1-19.

12.

Harris

Grace

(1999). A question of evidence: Investigating and prosecuting rape in the 1990s. London, England: Home Office.

13.

Hollander

(2009). The roots of resistance to women’s self-defense. Violence Against Women, 15, 574-594.

14.

Humphrey

(2005). Reconciliation and the therapeutic state. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 26, 203-220.

15.

Keating

S. M.

(1995). The limitations of intimate samples in sexual offences. Medicine and Law, 14, 387-395.

16.

Kelly

Lovett

Regan

(2005). A gap or a chasm? Attrition in reported rape cases. London, England: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.

17.

Kleck

Sayles

(1990). Rape and resistance. Social Problems, 37, 149-162.

18.

Larcombe

(2002). The “ideal” victim v successful rape complaints: Not what you might expect. Feminist Legal Studies, 10, 131-148.

19.

Lievore

(2005, January). Prosecutorial decisions in adult sexual assault cases (No. 291). Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, Australian Government.

20.

McCaughey

(1997). Real knockouts: The physical feminism of women’s self-defense. New York: New York University Press.

21.

Parnis

Du Mont

(1999). Rape laws and rape processing: The contradictory nature of corroboration. Canadian Woman Studies, 19(1 & 2), 74-78.

22.

Parnis

Du Mont

(2006). Symbolic power and the institutional response to rape: Uncovering the cultural dynamics of a forensic technology. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 43, 73-93.

23.

Pupavac

(2004). War on the couch: The emotionology of the new international security paradigm. European Journal of Social Theory, 7, 149-170.

24.

Rees

(2010). “It is not for me to say whether consent was given or not”: Forensic medical examiners’ construction of “neutral reports” in rape cases. Social & Legal Studies, 19, 371-386.

25.

Rees

White

(2012). Vindictive but vulnerable: The contradictory representations of women as demonstrated in internet discourse surrounding an anti-rape technology. Women’s Studies International Forum, 35, 426-431.

26.

Renzetti

(2004). Editor’s introduction. Violence Against Women, 10, 203-204.

27.

Rozee

(2011). New views of rape prevention and resistance: Enlightening men, empowering women. Feminism & Psychology, 21, 257-261.

28.

Rozee

Koss

(2001). Rape: A century of resistance. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25, 295-311.

29.

Senn

(2011). An imperfect feminist journey: Reflections on the process to develop an effective sexual assault resistance programme for university women. Feminism & Psychology, 21, 121-137.

30.

Temkin

Krahé

(2008). Sexual assault and the justice gap: A question of attitude. Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing.

31.

Ullman

(1997). Review and critique of empirical studies of rape avoidance. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24, 177-204.

32.

Ullman

(1998). Does offender violence escalate when rape victims fight back? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13, 179-192.

33.

Ullman

(2007). A 10-year update of “Review and critique of empirical studies of rape avoidance.” Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 411-429.

34.

Ullman

Knight

(1991). A multivariate model for predicting rape and physical injury outcomes during sexual assaults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 724-731.

35.

Ullman

Knight

(1992). Fighting back: Women’s resistance to rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 31-43.

36.

Vetten

(2011). Politics and the fine art of preventing rape. Feminism & Psychology, 21, 268-272.

37.

Zoucha-Jensen

Coyne

(1993). The effect of resistance strategies on rape. American Journal of Public Health, 83, 1633-1634.