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

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.