big rant time - rape and sexual abuse

Buckle up: Swedish teens design anti-rape belt
STOCKHOLM, Nov 22 (AFP) A group of Swedish teenage girls has designed a belt that requires two hands to remove and which they hope will deter would-be rapists, one of the creators told AFP on Tuesday.
"It's like a reverse chastity belt," one of the creators, 19-year-old Nadja Bjoerk, told AFP, meaning that the wearer is in control, instead of being controled.
The military-style buckle has a latch that the wearer has to move through a labyrinth into the correct position in order to unlock the belt.
"You need two hands to open it, so the rapist can't hold you down and open it at the same time. It takes a while to figure it out if you don't know what you're doing," she said.
The product was designed as part of a high school project in entrepreneurialism and the girls have already sold 300 of the belts in Sweden, priced at 150 kronor (18 dollars, 16 euros).
Bjoerk and one of her partners now plan to start a business to mass produce the belts and are currently in negotiations with potential partners.
"But I'm not doing this for the money," she said. "I'm really passionate about stopping rape. I think it's terrible."
The Swedish media have in recent months given wide and descriptive coverage to rape attacks, though experts' opinions vary on whether there has been an actual rise in the number of such crimes.

originally published on : SWEDEN.SE (administered by the Swedish Institute)


discussionrant to follow.

in fact this is it.

i was discussing issues of rape with a very good friend i've known years.
he's affronted by the fact that this campaign is running, without a similar one to women saying not to flirt too much, not to get pissed and go home with strangers and not expect them to demand sex...

for the purposes of this rant, i'm going to refer to rape in the context of men raping women. i'm fully aware that it's not always that way. i've also argued tonight that rape is not a feminist issue or a 'wimmins' issue, it can and does affect everyone.


we talked about the subject of rape/consent within relationships.
astoundingly, he came up with the argument that 'if you get married and take christian marriage vows, you're legally bound to provide your husband with sex, consensual or not'.

there are so many things that i'm bristling about.

i've been googling the 'traditional' christian marriage vows. the closest i can find that would stretch to (and it would have to be an exceedingly long stretch) that is 'to have and to hold', which is said by both bride and groom. along with 'to love and to cherish'.

in 1994, marital rape and male rape were both made illegal, which does away with the obligation bit..... (i'm not entirely sure that there was every anything saying you had to follow your marriage vows to the letter either... ok, they may well be cited in cases of divorce etc, but i can't exactly seeing them used as defense for rape)...

so so so many more levels to this, but i'll leave it for now.

in response to my argument that it shouldn't be a woman's responsibility not to get raped, but rather a man's responsibility to control himself, his response was 'it's like trying to politely ask a hungry dog not to bite you, instead of recognising what it is and just kicking its head off'.

yes, of course we need to take steps to look after ourselves. but with stuff like the 'rape belt' coming out and being seen as a woman's "responsibility", at what point does it turn from the (pathetic but unfortunately commonly held) view of 'she was wearing a mini skirt - she asked for it' to 'she wasn't wearing a rape belt, she asked for it'?.

i'm not informed enough to quote statistics, to give rousing references to speeches made by relevant people. and i don't think the point of this post is to do any of that. not even to put an argument forward (despite the entire content of it.. hm)... i'm just *really* wanting to let off some steam on this one.

i'm tired of living in a world where it's considered necessary to invent new ways of preventing being raped.

i'm tired of living in a world where a 13 year old boy is given a three year supervision order

(nb supervision order definition: A Supervision Order can last up to three years. A range of conditions can be attached to a Supervision Order when the sentence is used for more serious offences. These are called 'specified activities' and can last for up to 90 days. Examples of 'specified activities' might be participation in an Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme (ISSP), drug treatment (for young people aged 16+), curfews or residence requirements which might require a young person to live in local authority accommodation for the period of the sentence.A young person receiving a Supervision Order is also required to take part in activities set by the Youth Offending Team (YOT) which could include repairing the harm done by their offence either to the victim or the community and programmes to address their offending behaviour such as anger management")

for "two counts of attempted rape, eight of sexual assault and three of inciting another boy to engage in sexual activity ". The children he abused were eight and four, respectively.

i'm tired that it happened in the first place, i'm tired that it even occurred to a kid to *do* that, i'm tired of the apparent lack of concern that the case has generated.

i've discussed similar cases involving kids of similar ages before with other people. One of the arguments that comes out often is 'but they were young. they probably didn't know what they were doing. they were curious', implying it's a (minorly) unhealthy part of 'sex play' or childrens sexual development or whatever, but completely un-blamable.

i was very interested to see a quote from the director of Kidscape, describing the sentence as the "wrong decision".
She said: "We know that many older paedophiles do start abusing children when they are about 12 or 13. "

please get me out off of this planet.