4 ms·

I think I've heard self defense experts recommend against pepper spray. Not sure why - perhaps fumbling around for it in your purse wastes too much valuable tim

by Tichy 14y ago

I think I've heard self defense experts recommend against pepper spray. Not sure why - perhaps fumbling around for it in your purse wastes too much valuable time, and there is the danger of hurting yourself instead of the attacker? In any case it seems very naive to me to think the problem could be solved in such a way. I certainly don't think it is because of pepper spray that we presumably have less rape incidents in the western world.

jerf 14y ago
What's your proposed "non-naive" solution? (And does it leave a window of decades in some places before it can be feasibly implemented in India, where vast swathes of the country are still third-world?)
- dragonbonheur 14y ago
  Here it is, Rape-aXe: www.youtube.com/watch?v=9guyVVqHcYo It can be made for cheap and there is demand for it.
  - aneth4 14y ago
    I had forgotten about these. Does seem like an interesting product, though I think they would discovered and removed by many potential rapists. I wonder if a girl who used one successfully could be charged with assault. That would be a sad irony.
  - jerf 14y ago
    Mmm, I'd really rather use a solution that doesn't leave an enraged and otherwise healthy man able to beat you, possibly unto death, because you hurt his penis. Pepper spray incapacitates for long enough for you to leave. It was certainly an idea that got the doctor on the international news, but I'm skeptical that it's going to be effective in practice. (But if there is evidence that people can dig up that it is, I'm open to the idea; I mean that I am skeptical in the true sense of being open to evidence, not as a deceptive way of saying I'll never believe.)
  - rauljara 14y ago
    While it's well meaning, that really doesn't sound like a solution. On the purely practical front: you will never get enough woman wear them. The most you could hope for is enough woman wearing them so that they have a deterrent effect on would-be rapists. But if enough people hear about them, and the rapists know to expect them, what's to stop the rapist from simply removing it? I would also expect that if the condom functioned as expected, it would mostly just serve to enrage the rapist and make it more likely for him to escalate the level of violence. On a more emotional level: the woman still gets raped. What's more, she has to ritually insert an object that only works if she does get raped. I can't imagine that being good for one's psyche. Which is not to say we shouldn't search for interesting solutions wherever we can find them. But I'm very skeptical that some gadget is going to solve this problem. Protesting and agitating for social change is probably the most effective route that's available right now. And these women are kind of amazing, though vigilanteism always raises tough questions: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/02/26/meet-the-woman-behind-indias-pink-vigilantes.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/02/26/meet-the-wo...
  - DanBC 14y ago
    Men don't always use a penis for rape. Nor do they always use the vagina. I wouldn't want to risk bloodshed from a rapist. Risk of HIV infection is already high, but made much higher with blood around. Rape-aXe is an idea that's {at least a decade old} EDIT been around since at least 2005. There's a reason why it's not being produced nor sold.
- Tichy 14y ago
  What makes you think I have one? I don't know, maybe throwing a nuke on India? That would effectively kill all the rapists. I really don't subscribe to the ideology of "we have to do something, no matter if it even does harm". I think that is one of the worst things humans do on a regular basis. Actionism - is that a word in English? I don't think eating chocolate helps against cancer, but that doesn't imply that I know what helps against cancer. I simply don't know enough about India to know where to even start. I suppose improved women's rights, reliable police and stuff like that would help. Perhaps even a media campaign telling people it is not OK to rape will do some good.
  - jerf 14y ago
    "I suppose improved women's rights, reliable police and stuff like that would help." This is specifically what I was expected when I added that it shouldn't be decades away from implementation in many parts of the country. Women are getting raped today. They need protection today. Maybe the balance doesn't work out in the West, maybe it doesn't even work out in India, but I doubt the harm is going to be so extensive that it isn't at least worth a try. Some people seem to be reacting as if we're equipping these women with live grenades or something. It's not. It's pepper spray... and we're talking a rape here. We've got some... "moral currency" to spend here before we're up to an outcome that is as bad as doing nothing.
    - Tichy 14y ago
      If it works, sure - as I said, what I have heard is that it is actually detrimental for self-defense. Maybe you could also provide pepper spray training, which seems to be a requirement for using it effectively? Also, it seems a very aggressive stance, also with the wording about pigs. I worry that what we will see now in India (maybe it has been like that before) is a lot of acts of arbitrary law, people killing other people just because of a rumor. So in general I don't think pouring more oil into the fire is the best idea. Don't get me wrong, I have no sympathy for rapists at all. They can be roasted in a bath of pepper spray for all I care.
icey 14y ago
Odd, I've talked to multiple unrelated defense experts who recommend it (police, military and self defense trainers in the US). It's an area-of-effect tool, doesn't require extensive training to effectively use, and thanks to being non-lethal, should give people much less pause to deploy when needed than something like a firearm - decision lag is a real problem when talking about self-defense. You're nearly guaranteed to be impacted to some degree by using pepper spray, BUT it will also be very effective in changing the course of a bad situation - it will provide a chance to get away.
- aes256 14y ago
  A few obvious drawbacks without even reading into the subject: 1) The additional sense of security may lead people carrying pepper spray to take more risks, to travel through more dangerous places, etc. (risk compensation, a la bicycle helmets) 2) Few people who carry pepper spray have received appropriate training in its use, and even those who are appropriately trained will take a not-insignificant amount of time to retrieve and effectively deploy it; 3) The person using pepper spray is almost certainly going to fall victim to the pepper spray themselves, hindering their escape from the attacker; 4) The use of pepper spray is likely to anger an attacker, leading to an escalation in violence; even if the attacker has difficulty seeing as a result of the spray, they may still inflict an awful lot of harm on their victim; 5) In the worst case scenario, in fumbling to retrieve and deploy pepper spray, it may be snatched by the attacker and used against the victim.
  - icey 14y ago
    I don't know anyone who carries pepper spray that's become less risk averse because they carry it. Isn't that kind of like saying carrying condoms makes you more promiscuous? The question is pepper spray vs. no pepper spray, I think for the rest of your drawbacks it's pretty clear that having a deterrent available is an improvement over not having one. There's quite a lot of literature about this, and I guess you could ask any cop what they think about it too.
    - aes256 14y ago
evilduck 14y ago
I'm not sure about rape defense (see my other reply, I personally don't think anyone would continue a rape attempt while burning all over, but they might just resort to plain violence), but pepper spray has an onset-time of several seconds before it really starts to work and pure pepper spray (not laced with CN/CS gas) has tolerance issues and isn't equally effective across the board for all people. People caution against it for self defense because it's effectively worthless against someone who's after you with actual lethal intentions who is wielding a gun or knife; several seconds is plenty of time to close a 20ft gap when sprinting and still stab you a half dozen times before the spray really kicks in (and you can still blindly stab at someone), or get off a few rounds before their eyes shut from the pepper spray. Pepper spray is also not mechanically disabling, which is a concern for self defense in lethal situations. Adrenaline does crazy things and people can continue doing things through immense amounts of pain. Tazers are physically disabling by overriding your muscle control. Batons can breaks bones and can mechanically stop someone from continuing; guns and knives can mechanically stop an attacker. It doesn't matter how much adrenaline you have in you, you can't run, swing a knife, or aim a gun if the required muscle to do so is missing, detached, or not listening to the brain. Pepper spray is simply a pain deterrent, nothing more.

by Tichy 14y ago

jerf 14y ago

What's your proposed "non-naive" solution? (And does it leave a window of decades in some places before it can be feasibly implemented in India, where vast swathes of the country are still third-world?)

dragonbonheur 14y ago
Here it is, Rape-aXe: www.youtube.com/watch?v=9guyVVqHcYo It can be made for cheap and there is demand for it.
- aneth4 14y ago
  I had forgotten about these. Does seem like an interesting product, though I think they would discovered and removed by many potential rapists. I wonder if a girl who used one successfully could be charged with assault. That would be a sad irony.
- jerf 14y ago
  Mmm, I'd really rather use a solution that doesn't leave an enraged and otherwise healthy man able to beat you, possibly unto death, because you hurt his penis. Pepper spray incapacitates for long enough for you to leave. It was certainly an idea that got the doctor on the international news, but I'm skeptical that it's going to be effective in practice. (But if there is evidence that people can dig up that it is, I'm open to the idea; I mean that I am skeptical in the true sense of being open to evidence, not as a deceptive way of saying I'll never believe.)
- rauljara 14y ago
  While it's well meaning, that really doesn't sound like a solution. On the purely practical front: you will never get enough woman wear them. The most you could hope for is enough woman wearing them so that they have a deterrent effect on would-be rapists. But if enough people hear about them, and the rapists know to expect them, what's to stop the rapist from simply removing it? I would also expect that if the condom functioned as expected, it would mostly just serve to enrage the rapist and make it more likely for him to escalate the level of violence. On a more emotional level: the woman still gets raped. What's more, she has to ritually insert an object that only works if she does get raped. I can't imagine that being good for one's psyche. Which is not to say we shouldn't search for interesting solutions wherever we can find them. But I'm very skeptical that some gadget is going to solve this problem. Protesting and agitating for social change is probably the most effective route that's available right now. And these women are kind of amazing, though vigilanteism always raises tough questions: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/02/26/meet-the-woman-behind-indias-pink-vigilantes.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/02/26/meet-the-wo...
- DanBC 14y ago
  Men don't always use a penis for rape. Nor do they always use the vagina. I wouldn't want to risk bloodshed from a rapist. Risk of HIV infection is already high, but made much higher with blood around. Rape-aXe is an idea that's {at least a decade old} EDIT been around since at least 2005. There's a reason why it's not being produced nor sold.
Tichy 14y ago
What makes you think I have one? I don't know, maybe throwing a nuke on India? That would effectively kill all the rapists. I really don't subscribe to the ideology of "we have to do something, no matter if it even does harm". I think that is one of the worst things humans do on a regular basis. Actionism - is that a word in English? I don't think eating chocolate helps against cancer, but that doesn't imply that I know what helps against cancer. I simply don't know enough about India to know where to even start. I suppose improved women's rights, reliable police and stuff like that would help. Perhaps even a media campaign telling people it is not OK to rape will do some good.
- jerf 14y ago
  "I suppose improved women's rights, reliable police and stuff like that would help." This is specifically what I was expected when I added that it shouldn't be decades away from implementation in many parts of the country. Women are getting raped today. They need protection today. Maybe the balance doesn't work out in the West, maybe it doesn't even work out in India, but I doubt the harm is going to be so extensive that it isn't at least worth a try. Some people seem to be reacting as if we're equipping these women with live grenades or something. It's not. It's pepper spray... and we're talking a rape here. We've got some... "moral currency" to spend here before we're up to an outcome that is as bad as doing nothing.
  - Tichy 14y ago
    If it works, sure - as I said, what I have heard is that it is actually detrimental for self-defense. Maybe you could also provide pepper spray training, which seems to be a requirement for using it effectively? Also, it seems a very aggressive stance, also with the wording about pigs. I worry that what we will see now in India (maybe it has been like that before) is a lot of acts of arbitrary law, people killing other people just because of a rumor. So in general I don't think pouring more oil into the fire is the best idea. Don't get me wrong, I have no sympathy for rapists at all. They can be roasted in a bath of pepper spray for all I care.

icey 14y ago

Odd, I've talked to multiple unrelated defense experts who recommend it (police, military and self defense trainers in the US). It's an area-of-effect tool, doesn't require extensive training to effectively use, and thanks to being non-lethal, should give people much less pause to deploy when needed than something like a firearm - decision lag is a real problem when talking about self-defense. You're nearly guaranteed to be impacted to some degree by using pepper spray, BUT it will also be very effective in changing the course of a bad situation - it will provide a chance to get away.

aes256 14y ago
A few obvious drawbacks without even reading into the subject: 1) The additional sense of security may lead people carrying pepper spray to take more risks, to travel through more dangerous places, etc. (risk compensation, a la bicycle helmets) 2) Few people who carry pepper spray have received appropriate training in its use, and even those who are appropriately trained will take a not-insignificant amount of time to retrieve and effectively deploy it; 3) The person using pepper spray is almost certainly going to fall victim to the pepper spray themselves, hindering their escape from the attacker; 4) The use of pepper spray is likely to anger an attacker, leading to an escalation in violence; even if the attacker has difficulty seeing as a result of the spray, they may still inflict an awful lot of harm on their victim; 5) In the worst case scenario, in fumbling to retrieve and deploy pepper spray, it may be snatched by the attacker and used against the victim.
- icey 14y ago
  I don't know anyone who carries pepper spray that's become less risk averse because they carry it. Isn't that kind of like saying carrying condoms makes you more promiscuous? The question is pepper spray vs. no pepper spray, I think for the rest of your drawbacks it's pretty clear that having a deterrent available is an improvement over not having one. There's quite a lot of literature about this, and I guess you could ask any cop what they think about it too.
  - aes256 14y ago

evilduck 14y ago

I'm not sure about rape defense (see my other reply, I personally don't think anyone would continue a rape attempt while burning all over, but they might just resort to plain violence), but pepper spray has an onset-time of several seconds before it really starts to work and pure pepper spray (not laced with CN/CS gas) has tolerance issues and isn't equally effective across the board for all people. People caution against it for self defense because it's effectively worthless against someone who's after you with actual lethal intentions who is wielding a gun or knife; several seconds is plenty of time to close a 20ft gap when sprinting and still stab you a half dozen times before the spray really kicks in (and you can still blindly stab at someone), or get off a few rounds before their eyes shut from the pepper spray. Pepper spray is also not mechanically disabling, which is a concern for self defense in lethal situations. Adrenaline does crazy things and people can continue doing things through immense amounts of pain. Tazers are physically disabling by overriding your muscle control. Batons can breaks bones and can mechanically stop someone from continuing; guns and knives can mechanically stop an attacker. It doesn't matter how much adrenaline you have in you, you can't run, swing a knife, or aim a gun if the required muscle to do so is missing, detached, or not listening to the brain. Pepper spray is simply a pain deterrent, nothing more.